From dmiloshevic at afilias.info Sun Jan 31 18:23:45 2010 From: dmiloshevic at afilias.info (Desiree Miloshevic) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:23:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <34FDD643-6A96-4D85-8BBF-3ADD3A9EC6B7@afilias.info> Yes + thematic wg Desiree -- On 30 Jan 2010, at 20:26, e-cpsr wrote: > If i'm not too late, i vote "Yes + thematics". > > Thank you. > > -- > eden > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 31 17:50:44 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:50:44 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Preliminary results of consensus call on IGC In-Reply-To: <754E3BE7-2FF7-4F67-8350-2AE1659A8D81@ciroap.org> References: <575BB2F5-33E3-4D39-982F-AE38C7BC4D50@ciroap.org> <754E3BE7-2FF7-4F67-8350-2AE1659A8D81@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B660944.6050101@cafonso.ca> Congrats on the good work, Jeremy. --c.a. Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 31/01/2010, at 3:59 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> I am not calling a result yet, because I need to discuss with Ginger. However, as indication of participation, my count says that after removing duplicate votes and accounting for changed votes (mainly from YES to YES + thematic working groups), we have had 39 votes for YES + thematic working groups, 3 YES votes, 3 NO votes, and one abstention. > > The coordinators have decided that a rough consensus now exists in favour of the IGC statement in the form below (ie. YES + thematic working groups). To clarify Deirdre's question on list, this is not a case where a vote has been taken. The "voting" is just a means of establishing the degree of consensus that exists. > > Also thanks Deirdre for pulling me up on talking in the singular first person about announcing the result - whilst Ginger had left the settling of this statement for me, in the end it is certainly a joint endeavour (and more than that, an endeavour of the entire IGC). > > Thanks to Parminder for expounding on the question of whether the views of those who had joined the list since the last election would be taken into account in assessing the consensus. As it happens, there is a current proposal to investigate revising the IGC charter. This is a point on which such a revision would be beneficial. We will revisit this in the coming weeks. > > The statement below will be sent to the Secretariat shortly. > > Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. > > Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF. > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > About the IGC > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.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 mazzone at ebu.ch Sun Jan 31 19:46:22 2010 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 01:46:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] In-Reply-To: <4B646AB6.7000204@uni-graz.at> References: <4B645BC3.2090304@nic.br> <2118739643-1264871940-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-881310633-@bda017.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4B646AB6.7000204@uni-graz.at> Message-ID: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF437726678@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> I ABSTAIN MYSELF. There are part of the statement that I don't agree with. But because it seems that there is a majority that like, I prefer to abstain instead than to vote against. Best regards to everybody. Giacomo Mazzone On 30/01/2010 07:32, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open consultation meeting, please vote now. At present the statement might not pass the consensus call - not because there has been a lot of opposition to it, but because the total number of responses is still relatively low. Please also remember that we have another thread in which to discuss the agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far there has been no response to Parminder's suggestion of a theme on "Network Neutrality/Open Internet". Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call. Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to clarify their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have yet changed their vote. Please vote: YES + thematic working groups to accept the statement as shown here YES to accept the statement without the [underlined passage] NO to reject the statement Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings.]] The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF.] We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. About the IGC The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. -- 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. -- Este mensaje ha sido analizado por MailScanner en busca de virus y otros contenidos peligrosos, y se considera que está limpio. MailScanner agradece a transtec Computers por su apoyo. ________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Matthias C. Kettemann Harvard Law School LL.M. Class of 2010 29 Garden St, Apt # 604 Cambridge, MA 02138, USA M | +1 617 229 9015 E | mkettemann at llm10.law.harvard.edu Skype | matthiaskettemann FlickR | http://www.flickr.com/photos/mckettemann Facebook | http://www.facebook.com/matthias.kettemann -- Mag. iur. Matthias C. Kettemann Teaching and Research Fellow | Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter Institute of International Law and International Relations University of Graz Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria T | +43 316 380 6711 (office) M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobile) F | +43 316 380 9455 (fax) E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 31 19:57:54 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 08:57:54 +0800 Subject: [governance] Preliminary results of consensus call on IGC In-Reply-To: <76f819dd1001310707t19c81594g78496860d585597a@mail.gmail.com> References: <575BB2F5-33E3-4D39-982F-AE38C7BC4D50@ciroap.org> <808a83f61001310519k74dcbe1eq2f0737a3a818823a@mail.gmail.com> <4B658BA7.2000807@itforchange.net> <76f819dd1001310707t19c81594g78496860d585597a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2D83123A-8455-4CFD-BDE0-CB1FB56B4382@ciroap.org> Thank you Paul for this excellent work. > CHARTER: > "All voting will be open," [unless a secret ballot is adopted.] I suggest that to maintain this openness but to reduce complaints about the volume of votes on the list, we will experiment with an optional Web-based vote next time, with registration and open archives of votes cast. If anyone lacks Web access, they could still vote here. > The actual text being voted on recites at the bottom what appears to > be the full number of listserv participants (about 400) to enhance the > credibility of IGC consensus statements (one assumes) and yet the IGC > does not allow a substantial section of the 400 to vote on the > consensus. The larger the number of people from whom a concensus is > reached the stronger the resulting statement of consensus is, so there > appears to be a result here that is not in the best interests of the > IGC. Well, I do agree and I can only say that I (and at least certain others too) were under a misapprehension about what was required. Hopefully the future revised Charter can be clearer on this. -- 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 Jan 31 20:06:50 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 09:06:50 +0800 Subject: [governance] Process issues for future consensus calls In-Reply-To: References: <7048891E-4BE3-4FCB-9E9C-FD7DCEE19FEF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <1B158610-7A6C-4B49-A331-73B957CCB0FB@ciroap.org> On 01/02/2010, at 3:12 AM, McTim wrote: > However, I do have a problem with the conflation of voting and finding > consensus. IIRC, we vote ONLY when electing coordinators. > > Let's keep the word "voting/vote" ONLY for elections, IMO we do NOT > vote on statements. We indicate support for statements (or lack > thereof). While the difference is subtle it is important for some of > us, and is one of the reasons we approved the charter as is. I have no problem with that. Thanks for the suggestion. >> It may be possible for technology to come to our aid here, in that we could >> experiment with collectively drafting documents online without the need for >> confusing exchanges of emails with many bracketed sections, as Bill's >> approach would (in my view) have required in this case. > > As long as we use the website specified in the charter. I would love that to be so, but it's not technically possible. :-( We don't have sufficient access rights to the igcaucus.org Web site for the necessary software to be installed there. I would have to use the igf-online.net site, which is meant as a public, non-partisan site open to all to use for IGF-related purposes. I am currently its administrator after inheriting it from the defunct Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition, but would love for some other group (eg. the Remote Participation Working Group) to officially take it over. -- 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Sun Jan 31 22:01:11 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:01:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Process issues for future consensus calls In-Reply-To: <1B158610-7A6C-4B49-A331-73B957CCB0FB@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <377027.93849.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Jeremy Malcolm We can arrange to maintain web development, website management and hosting service for IGC on behalf of Urdu Internet Society. We offer to provide following features: Membership login areas: Members Discussion Forum (for each topic/thread as it is being managed in the email) Email Distribution List Easy to conduct Online Survey and Survey Analysis/statistics News and announcements. Tutorials and downloadables etc. We offer these contribution for IGC, IGF at our own cost. Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah 0092 300 4130617 Advisor to Urdu Internet Council Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 01/02/2010, at 3:12 AM, McTim wrote: >> However, I do have a problem with the conflation of voting and finding >> consensus. IIRC, we vote ONLY when electing coordinators. >> >> Let's keep the word "voting/vote" ONLY for elections, IMO we do NOT >> vote on statements. We indicate support for statements (or lack >> thereof). While the difference is subtle it is important for some of >> us, and is one of the reasons we approved the charter as is. > I have no problem with that. Thanks for the suggestion. >>> It may be possible for technology to come to our aid here, in that we could >>> experiment with collectively drafting documents online without the need for >>> confusing exchanges of emails with many bracketed sections, as Bill's >>> approach would (in my view) have required in this case. >> >> As long as we use the website specified in the charter. > I would love that to be so, but it's not technically possible. :-( We don't have sufficient access rights to the igcaucus.org Web site for the necessary software to be installed there. I would have to use the igf-online.net site, which is meant as a public, non-partisan site open to all to use for IGF-related purposes. I am currently its administrator after inheriting it from the defunct Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition, but would love for some other group (eg. the Remote Participation Working Group) to officially take it over. > -- > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 31 22:14:22 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:44:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CBD9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <690339E1-04A1-477B-B58A-2D7532BCD3A8@ciroap.org>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CBD9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B66470E.4090007@itforchange.net> Lee The rest of the world may be a little behind US on this debate, and Network Neutrality (NN) terms makes clearer sense to most. On the other hand open Internet is a little less clear as to its precise meaning. For instance, 'openness' as an IGF theme has mostly dealt with entirely different issues. Also IGC and Diplo Foundation co-sponsored workshop went with the NN label and could get most of the discussion focus on the right points. Let us not be hung up on one name or the other as far as we can make the judgment on what name would convey the right (or thereabout) meaning to most in an IGF setting. Nobody today seriously believes that NN means absolutely no network management at all, even for issues like security. May I propose we call it 'Network Neutrality - Ensuring an Open Internet Architecture' Parminder Lee W McKnight wrote: > Like Ian i am happier I am happier with the phrase 'open internet;' but would rather drop the phrase net neutrailty altogether. If I can't persuade rest of you to go along with that, then at least open internet should come 1st and net neutrality phrase 2nd. > > In sum: I strongly support an IGC statement calling for 'Open Internet' to be a main theme. > > My rationale: frankly 'net neutrality' as a stand-alone phrase is very 2008/dated. > > For example: The FCC launched an openinternet.gov website; and 'open internet' notice of proposed rulemaking - sometimes referred to as net neutrailty rulemaking, but that's not what the FCC is calling it. Reply comments are due march 5th if we/IGC care to comment ; ). > > From the FCC's openinternet.gov website: > > Get Informed about the Open Internet > * Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) > > About the Open Internet NPRM > What Is the Open Internet, and What Does the FCC Have To Do With It? > > The "open Internet" is the Internet as we know it. It’s "open" because it uses free, publicly available standards that anyone can access and build to, and because it treats all traffic that flows across the network in roughly the same way. This means an innovator in a garage or a student in a dorm room can easily invent and launch a new online service, and that content from a small business or a blogger can reach customers and audiences as easily as content from a multinational corporation or a major newspaper. Once you’re online, you don’t have to ask permission or pay tolls to broadband providers to reach others on the network. If you develop an innovative new website, you don’t have to get permission to share it with the world. Many believe that this freedom to communicate and innovate without permission is a big cause of the Internet’s remarkable success. > > But the Internet’s openness appears to face some emerging challenges, such as incidents where broadband providers have restricted the applications their customers can use over their Internet connections, a lack of transparency about how consumers’ Internet service will function, and congestion on the network. > > In light of these emerging challenges and uncertainties about existing policies, last month the FCC began a process to seek public input on draft rules of the road that would clarify and supplement current FCC policies to protect the open Internet. These basic, high-level rules would ensure that broadband providers don’t block consumers from accessing the content and applications of their choice, don’t deprive consumers of their entitlement to competition, and don’t discriminate against or in favor of traffic, and they would require broadband providers to disclose basic information about broadband service. Recognizing that the proposed framework needs to balance potentially competing interests while helping to ensure an open, safe, and secure Internet, the draft rules would permit broadband providers to engage in reasonable network management, including but not limited to efforts to block spam and ensure that heavy users don’t crowd out other users. > > To launch the rulemaking process, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, often referred to as the "open Internet NPRM." As the FCC always does when it considers new rules, it has asked the public for input, and anyone may submit comments over a period of several months. After the deadline for comments has passed and the FCC has reviewed the public’s input, the FCC’s five Commissioners may vote to adopt rules on these issues. > ________________________________________ > From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 4:21 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius > > I’d certainly like to see network neutrality/ open internet advanced as a theme, and seeing net neutrality can be so confusing I’d like to see open Internet added after it. > > IGC co sponsored a very successful three hour workshop on this at Sharm with Diplo. There are many issues, content neutrality probably sitting highest in my mind. Its worthy of a main session as the current main session themes we have repeated for some years are getting a little tired. > > And yes we should continue to support the human rights and development agendas. We need to find a way to overcome the block on rights discussions which was evident last year – if anyone has suggestions on how we might achieve this I would be interested. > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Reply-To: , Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:40:27 +0800 > To: > Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius > > On 29/01/2010, at 6:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > So, let's get to work on such a statement now. I don't think it needs to be very long, and indeed we could just put forward some bullet points for Ginger to elaborate upon on the day. So far we have on the table the following substantive themes: > > * Human rights > * Development agenda > * Network neutrality/Open Internet > > Comments, please, particularly on the last of these which Parminder has just introduced? > > With just over a week to go there have still been no comments on this thread so far, so I will try to summarise some of the arguments that are usually made for and against this theme, as a way of kick-starting discussion: > > FOR: > > Network neutrality (or "open Internet") emphasises the interest of Internet users in being able, by default, to access content, services and applications free from corporate or governmental interference (though there are cases in which compelling interests may require exceptions to this general principle). Network neutrality also stands for the treatment of intermediaries (again, by default) as conduits for information, rather than gatekeepers who bear liability for the content they carry. > > AGAINST: > > Network neutrality is a confusing phrase with many different meanings to different people. For example it is still wrongly thought of as preventing individual network operators from managing their bandwidth, which will only lead to misunderstandings in Vilnius (like the arguments over whether "critical Internet resources" includes electricity). On the other hand "Open Internet" doesn't seem to add anything to the existing "Openness" theme, so why not just keep using that existing theme instead? > -- > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 31 22:47:13 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:47:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <4B66470E.4090007@itforchange.net> References: <690339E1-04A1-477B-B58A-2D7532BCD3A8@ciroap.org>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CBD9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4B66470E.4090007@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CBDC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> ok parminder, as long you assure me net neutrality doesn't mean what some thought it meant in IGF context I will be flexible : ) But just to clarify, the phrase 'open internet' is not a new fcc invention, it has been around as a core design principle from beginning. ________________________________________ From: Parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 10:14 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight Cc: Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius Lee The rest of the world may be a little behind US on this debate, and Network Neutrality (NN) terms makes clearer sense to most. On the other hand open Internet is a little less clear as to its precise meaning. For instance, 'openness' as an IGF theme has mostly dealt with entirely different issues. Also IGC and Diplo Foundation co-sponsored workshop went with the NN label and could get most of the discussion focus on the right points. Let us not be hung up on one name or the other as far as we can make the judgment on what name would convey the right (or thereabout) meaning to most in an IGF setting. Nobody today seriously believes that NN means absolutely no network management at all, even for issues like security. May I propose we call it 'Network Neutrality - Ensuring an Open Internet Architecture' Parminder Lee W McKnight wrote: Like Ian i am happier I am happier with the phrase 'open internet;' but would rather drop the phrase net neutrailty altogether. If I can't persuade rest of you to go along with that, then at least open internet should come 1st and net neutrality phrase 2nd. In sum: I strongly support an IGC statement calling for 'Open Internet' to be a main theme. My rationale: frankly 'net neutrality' as a stand-alone phrase is very 2008/dated. For example: The FCC launched an openinternet.gov website; and 'open internet' notice of proposed rulemaking - sometimes referred to as net neutrailty rulemaking, but that's not what the FCC is calling it. Reply comments are due march 5th if we/IGC care to comment ; ). From the FCC's openinternet.gov website: Get Informed about the Open Internet * Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About the Open Internet NPRM What Is the Open Internet, and What Does the FCC Have To Do With It? The "open Internet" is the Internet as we know it. It’s "open" because it uses free, publicly available standards that anyone can access and build to, and because it treats all traffic that flows across the network in roughly the same way. This means an innovator in a garage or a student in a dorm room can easily invent and launch a new online service, and that content from a small business or a blogger can reach customers and audiences as easily as content from a multinational corporation or a major newspaper. Once you’re online, you don’t have to ask permission or pay tolls to broadband providers to reach others on the network. If you develop an innovative new website, you don’t have to get permission to share it with the world. Many believe that this freedom to communicate and innovate without permission is a big cause of the Internet’s remarkable success. But the Internet’s openness appears to face some emerging challenges, such as incidents where broadband providers have restricted the applications their customers can use over their Internet connections, a lack of transparency about how consumers’ Internet service will function, and congestion on the network. In light of these emerging challenges and uncertainties about existing policies, last month the FCC began a process to seek public input on draft rules of the road that would clarify and supplement current FCC policies to protect the open Internet. These basic, high-level rules would ensure that broadband providers don’t block consumers from accessing the content and applications of their choice, don’t deprive consumers of their entitlement to competition, and don’t discriminate against or in favor of traffic, and they would require broadband providers to disclose basic information about broadband service. Recognizing that the proposed framework needs to balance potentially competing interests while helping to ensure an open, safe, and secure Internet, the draft rules would permit broadband providers to engage in reasonable network management, including but not limited to efforts to block spam and ensure that heavy users don’t crowd out other users. To launch the rulemaking process, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, often referred to as the "open Internet NPRM." As the FCC always does when it considers new rules, it has asked the public for input, and anyone may submit comments over a period of several months. After the deadline for comments has passed and the FCC has reviewed the public’s input, the FCC’s five Commissioners may vote to adopt rules on these issues. ________________________________________ From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 4:21 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius I’d certainly like to see network neutrality/ open internet advanced as a theme, and seeing net neutrality can be so confusing I’d like to see open Internet added after it. IGC co sponsored a very successful three hour workshop on this at Sharm with Diplo. There are many issues, content neutrality probably sitting highest in my mind. Its worthy of a main session as the current main session themes we have repeated for some years are getting a little tired. And yes we should continue to support the human rights and development agendas. We need to find a way to overcome the block on rights discussions which was evident last year – if anyone has suggestions on how we might achieve this I would be interested. ________________________________ From: Jeremy Malcolm Reply-To: , Jeremy Malcolm Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:40:27 +0800 To: Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius On 29/01/2010, at 6:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: So, let's get to work on such a statement now. I don't think it needs to be very long, and indeed we could just put forward some bullet points for Ginger to elaborate upon on the day. So far we have on the table the following substantive themes: * Human rights * Development agenda * Network neutrality/Open Internet Comments, please, particularly on the last of these which Parminder has just introduced? With just over a week to go there have still been no comments on this thread so far, so I will try to summarise some of the arguments that are usually made for and against this theme, as a way of kick-starting discussion: FOR: Network neutrality (or "open Internet") emphasises the interest of Internet users in being able, by default, to access content, services and applications free from corporate or governmental interference (though there are cases in which compelling interests may require exceptions to this general principle). Network neutrality also stands for the treatment of intermediaries (again, by default) as conduits for information, rather than gatekeepers who bear liability for the content they carry. AGAINST: Network neutrality is a confusing phrase with many different meanings to different people. For example it is still wrongly thought of as preventing individual network operators from managing their bandwidth, which will only lead to misunderstandings in Vilnius (like the arguments over whether "critical Internet resources" includes electricity). On the other hand "Open Internet" doesn't seem to add anything to the existing "Openness" theme, so why not just keep using that existing theme instead? -- 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 1 11:51:22 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 08:51:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGF Workshop reports Message-ID: <833206.65654.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Adam,   This seems like a very minimal requirement. Your link was quite concise and a nice snapshot of what was done.  Why a delay or perhaps recalcitrance to file a full report?   I want to know what great progress was made in this essential area.   What I most like about the concept of the merger and "attitude" of the "outline" and the participant list was that I got a sense that models and monitoring and therefor a system for accountability seems to be in the works. This is a good backbone for Internet Governance.   (I note also a good blend of nonconfrontational Technical with Policy, highly desireable) --- On Thu, 12/31/09, Adam Peake wrote: From: Adam Peake Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Workshop reports To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: :@npogroups.org Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 1:47 PM > In message <4B3C8AC9.8000401 at wzb.eu>, at 11:28:09 on Thu, 31 Dec 2009, Jeanette Hofmann writes >> such things are always subject to negotiation. If you ask me, Alice should be able to convince the secretariat that she wasn't in a position to write a report. So should be your guy who dropped out. Co-organizers, on the other hand, should be grown up enough to share the responsibility to deliver a report. But there are just my personal thoughts. > > I'm primarily concerned about the multitude of people mentioned as co-organisers, who may not realise that their future prospects could depend upon a report being filed. There's a section in each workshop proposal "The Workshop is proposed on behalf of"  and it's the organizations listed there that are responsible for the report.  They should know who they are as the organized and held a workshop in Sharm. The requirement to file was part of the call for workshops, this isn't a surprise request (was also a condition last year.) I submitted a workshop proposal, had supporters from various stakeholders, but I led the organizing.  We eventually merged with a workshop proposed by Bill Woodcock (he also had support from various stakeholders). Bill and I, for GLOCOM and PCH, are responsible for the report.  Not the other stakeholders who supported the workshop.  If we don't submit a report (haven't yet...) we'll not be eligible to organize a workshop next year. Adam > Maybe one way out is to differentiate between Joint Proposers, and "Co-organisers to be approached" (to use the language of the website). > > Roland. > >> Roland Perry wrote: >>> In message <4B3B872A.4010908 at wzb.eu>, at 17:00:26 on Wed, 30 Dec 2009,  Jeanette Hofmann quotes Marcus Kummer: >>> >>>> We all agreed to make submission of a workshop report a prerequisite for accepting a workshop proposal for the Vilnius meeting. The new deadline will give us a clearer picture of how many potential organizers we may have next year by the time we meet in February. >>>  There's an aspect of this which puzzles me slightly: Several workshops  were merged, which has left the definition of "organizer" unclear. >>>  Let's say that Tom, Dick and Harry all proposed workshops on similar topics, and merged. From then on, Tom did all the administrative work, Dick helped him, but Harry dropped out after he'd passed the contact details for his proposed speakers to Tom. >>>  Harry had also originally said in his proposal that he was co-organising  his workshop with Alice, but in fact had never contacted Alice to  confirm this, and she knows nothing about it. >>>  Tom failed to file a workshop report on time, does that also disqualify  Dick or Harry (and Alice?) from proposing a workshop in their original  individual capacities for Vilnius? >> ______________________________________________________ > > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 1 12:35:10 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 09:35:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <205184.29229.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Clearly the questions tell us more than the answers ever will.  Hence in a court of law they are disfavored as "leading" - (with exceptions for disabilities, experts and hostiles{funny they lump those 3 together})   So for discussion and debate the questions are well framed. For collection of raw insightful(not inciteful) data they are skewed.  So do we want a survey that reflects existing consensus or one that leads us into debate that will ultimately show a future overview?   I suggest we shorten it. Make it more concise. Label each question #  and ask for that for future discussion subject lines and compile as we go. Anticipate a late february date for a new survey to crystalize consensus with a new "just the fact of opinion" then circulate and poll. Good to remember that it should not be for us but for others to understand us.   Perhaps the coolest thing of this would be that next time a "paper" position is asked for on a given area -- we do not rush to provide a paper but rather coalate our already existing data.  I think Gingers' forsight in this regard is invaluable. --- On Thu, 12/31/09, Michael Gurstein wrote: From: Michael Gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 5:10 AM To be "nerdy" about this...   I think that the q'aire is a well-intentioned idea but really quite misleading except as a possible means for sensitizing the non-informed concerning IGF issues and even there it has some serious flaws.   The problem with the q'aire is that it isn't clear what it's purpose is. The q'aire states that "this survey is intended to gauge the position of members of the Internet Governance Caucus regarding possible structural reforms for the Internet " however, virtually all of the questions are structured in a format so as to elicit the opinions of the responder as to what the current situation within the IGF IS rather than what it OUGHT TO BE in the opinion of the responder.    Unless one is doing a survey of the current level of knowledge of the responder the results really aren't of much value at all (and its hard to know why the level of knowledge concerning the IGF among the responders from the IGC would be of anything other than peripheral academic interest..). It wouldn't take that much to change the questions around so as to elicit opinions (which might be interesting) but otherwise...   Best,   Mike (whose basic training was as a sociologist... -----Original Message-----From: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 9:54 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight; Fouad Bajwa; Jeremy Malcolm; Ginger Paque Subject: RE: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF I can see all the points made, but I quite liked the survey. I hope that this advice is taken and the survey resubmitted to us masses. --- On Mon, 12/28/09, Lee W McKnight wrote: From: Lee W McKnight Subject: RE: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , "Fouad Bajwa" , "Jeremy Malcolm" , "Ginger Paque" Date: Monday, December 28, 2009, 1:16 PM Jeremy, Not to get all nerdy on you, but generally a survey like this would go through a ´pre-test´phase where little (or big) errors/ambiguities in the survey design, ie the precise wording of questions, is tested before  you ask lots of people to complete it. My suggestion: compile and tweak the survey in response to the early feedback, then post again. Lee ________________________________________ From: Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 5:46 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF Hi Jeremy, Welcome to office :o) Good effort with the survey but I just had a run through of the survey and I had a few thoughts or concerns as you may say to share.: 1. My initial suggestion is that the answers should not be restricted to a drop down list, there should be a text box to allow the surveyed to fill in their thoughts and reflections instead of being bound to a specific set of answers, freedom to express thoughts shouldn't be restricted to pre-defined answers. 2. Next, there are absolute un-referenced statements following a ? sign at the bottom of the answers for each question. I can't seem to find direct sources of these statements and their authenticity in general apart from the IGF structure. Is it possible to clarify these with the reference so when members answer these, they can also read the background of this statement? 3. Finally, some statements need to be reviewed again. The issue of MAG is one of the major issues but a whole statement isn't representative of all the issues that IGC needs to raise with mutual consensus to the IGF secretariat. Also regarding the MAG selection process, my understanding and the process that I witnessed was that the Secretariat issues a call for renewal of the MAG in accordance with the IGF mandate to all three member bodies of the multistakeholders. The multistakeholder groups than run a nomination process through their own determined procedures after which the names are forwarded to the secretariat that then forwards those names to the UN headquarters for the Secretary General to select, is this understanding correct, if yes, then the questions have to be reviewed again, if not, then the process has to be clarified and the IGC website has the outcome of the process clearly detailed with the names of the nominated. Also the MAG from my perspective should represent its nominating multistakeholder group and deliberate and intervene with the interests of that multistakeholder group. For example, the understanding that I practice as MAG member nominated and selected from IGC is that I am a representative of the IGC and I have to voice the concern and intervene on issues of importance to the IGC. In this regard, the employer or the organization behind you should be secondary and IGC should be first. Thus IGC/Civil Society MAG members intervene with IGC interests. If you agree to this, then the questions again need more improvement. These are just initial thoughts and I also suggest that we should first float the idea to the IGC list and with consensus build a survey to reflect our thoughts for devising statements.  In the last few weeks we had several threads on the issue of IGF improvement and IGC statements and those should be brought forward as they had a detailed amount of input from IGC members and my initial understanding was that we would devise the IGC statement based on those discussions to which you had also extensively contributed. Please take those into account as a priority since we have spent considerable thought and time into them. I hope these suggestions are helpful. Best Regards and Season's Greetings Fouad On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Hello all, and Merry Christmas to those who celebrate it! > > As foreshadowed by Ginger, I have created an online version of the survey > that I posted to the list some time ago about reforms to the IGF that we > might choose to put forward as a caucus. > You can find the online version > at http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/index.php?sid=17855 (I aimed to put it > up at igcaucus.org, but technical constraints prohibited it).  Participation > is voluntary and anonymous. > I have simplified it from the original version that I sent by email in that > you no longer need to list "ideal" and "pragmatic" responses.  Be as > pragmatic as you wish to be.  Even so, for some questions, there may be more > than one answer you would be satisfied with - in that case just choose the > best answer.  If no answers are satisfactory, choose "Other" and write in > your response. > Please complete your response by 10 January 2010.  Following that, I will > work with Ginger to produce a draft statement based on any consensus that > emerges from the survey.  I will post this to the list, and after a > discussion period we will aim for a consensus call on it. > Many thanks in anticipation of your responses! > > -- > > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Fri Jan 1 13:55:32 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 20:55:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF In-Reply-To: <205184.29229.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <205184.29229.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I like "coalate" - halfway between "coalesce" and "collate". Which is what we do most of the time ... Rui 2010/1/1 Eric Dierker > Clearly the questions tell us more than the answers ever will. Hence in a > court of law they are disfavored as "leading" - (with exceptions for > disabilities, experts and hostiles{funny they lump those 3 together}) > > So for discussion and debate the questions are well framed. For collection > of raw insightful(not inciteful) data they are skewed. So do we want a > survey that reflects existing consensus or one that leads us into debate > that will ultimately show a future overview? > > I suggest we shorten it. Make it more concise. Label each question # and > ask for that for future discussion subject lines and compile as we go. > Anticipate a late february date for a new survey to crystalize consensus > with a new "just the fact of opinion" then circulate and poll. Good to > remember that it should not be for us but for others to understand us. > > Perhaps the coolest thing of this would be that next time a "paper" > position is asked for on a given area -- we do not rush to provide a paper > but rather coalate our already existing data. I think Gingers' forsight in > this regard is invaluable. > > --- On *Thu, 12/31/09, Michael Gurstein * wrote: > > > From: Michael Gurstein > > Subject: RE: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 5:10 AM > > > To be "nerdy" about this... > > I think that the q'aire is a well-intentioned idea but really quite > misleading except as a possible means for sensitizing the non-informed > concerning IGF issues and even there it has some serious flaws. > > The problem with the q'aire is that it isn't clear what it's purpose is. > The q'aire states that "this survey is intended to gauge the position of > members of the Internet Governance Caucus regarding > possible structural reforms for the Internet " > however, virtually all of the questions are structured in a format so as to > elicit the opinions of the responder as to what the current situation within > the IGF I*S *rather than what it *OUGHT TO BE* in the opinion of the > responder. > > Unless one is doing a survey of the current level of knowledge of the > responder the results really aren't of much value at all (and its hard to > know why the level of knowledge concerning the IGF among the responders from > the IGC would be of anything other than peripheral academic interest..). It > wouldn't take that much to change the questions around so as to elicit > opinions (which might be interesting) but otherwise... > > Best, > > Mike (whose basic training was as a sociologist... > > -----Original Message-----*From:* Eric Dierker [mailto: > cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 29, 2009 9:54 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight; Fouad Bajwa; Jeremy > Malcolm; Ginger Paque > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF > > I can see all the points made, but I quite liked the survey. I hope that > this advice is taken and the survey resubmitted to us masses. > > --- On *Mon, 12/28/09, Lee W McKnight * wrote: > > > From: Lee W McKnight > Subject: RE: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF > To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , "Fouad Bajwa" > , "Jeremy Malcolm" , "Ginger > Paque" > Date: Monday, December 28, 2009, 1:16 PM > > Jeremy, > > Not to get all nerdy on you, but generally a survey like this would go > through a ´pre-test´phase where little (or big) errors/ambiguities in the > survey design, ie the precise wording of questions, is tested before you > ask lots of people to complete it. > > My suggestion: compile and tweak the survey in response to the early > feedback, then post again. > > Lee > > ________________________________________ > From: Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com > ] > Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 5:46 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; > Jeremy Malcolm; Ginger Paque > Subject: Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF > > Hi Jeremy, > > Welcome to office :o) Good effort with the survey but I just had a run > through of the survey and I had a few thoughts or concerns as you may > say to share.: > > 1. My initial suggestion is that the answers should not be restricted > to a drop down list, there should be a text box to allow the surveyed > to fill in their thoughts and reflections instead of being bound to a > specific set of answers, freedom to express thoughts shouldn't be > restricted to pre-defined answers. > > 2. Next, there are absolute un-referenced statements following a ? > sign at the bottom of the answers for each question. I can't seem to > find direct sources of these statements and their authenticity in > general apart from the IGF structure. Is it possible to clarify these > with the reference so when members answer these, they can also read > the background of this statement? > > 3. Finally, some statements need to be reviewed again. The issue of > MAG is one of the major issues but a whole statement isn't > representative of all the issues that IGC needs to raise with mutual > consensus to the IGF secretariat. > > Also regarding the MAG selection process, my understanding and the > process that I witnessed was that the Secretariat issues a call for > renewal of the MAG in accordance with the IGF mandate to all three > member bodies of the multistakeholders. The multistakeholder groups > than run a nomination process through their own determined procedures > after which the names are forwarded to the secretariat that then > forwards those names to the UN headquarters for the Secretary General > to select, is this understanding correct, if yes, then the questions > have to be reviewed again, if not, then the process has to be > clarified and the IGC website has the outcome of the process clearly > detailed with the names of the nominated. > > Also the MAG from my perspective should represent its nominating > multistakeholder group and deliberate and intervene with the interests > of that multistakeholder group. For example, the understanding that I > practice as MAG member nominated and selected from IGC is that I am a > representative of the IGC and I have to voice the concern and > intervene on issues of importance to the IGC. In this regard, the > employer or the organization behind you should be secondary and IGC > should be first. Thus IGC/Civil Society MAG members intervene with IGC > interests. If you agree to this, then the questions again need more > improvement. > > These are just initial thoughts and I also suggest that we should > first float the idea to the IGC list and with consensus build a survey > to reflect our thoughts for devising statements. In the last few > weeks we had several threads on the issue of IGF improvement and IGC > statements and those should be brought forward as they had a detailed > amount of input from IGC members and my initial understanding was that > we would devise the IGC statement based on those discussions to which > you had also extensively contributed. Please take those into account > as a priority since we have spent considerable thought and time into > them. > > I hope these suggestions are helpful. > > Best Regards and Season's Greetings > > Fouad > > On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > > wrote: > > Hello all, and Merry Christmas to those who celebrate it! > > > > As foreshadowed by Ginger, I have created an online version of the survey > > that I posted to the list some time ago about reforms to the IGF that we > > might choose to put forward as a caucus. > > You can find the online version > > at http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/index.php?sid=17855 (I aimed to put > it > > up at igcaucus.org, but technical constraints prohibited it). > Participation > > is voluntary and anonymous. > > I have simplified it from the original version that I sent by email in > that > > you no longer need to list "ideal" and "pragmatic" responses. Be as > > pragmatic as you wish to be. Even so, for some questions, there may be > more > > than one answer you would be satisfied with - in that case just choose > the > > best answer. If no answers are satisfactory, choose "Other" and write in > > your response. > > Please complete your response by 10 January 2010. Following that, I will > > work with Ginger to produce a draft statement based on any consensus that > > emerges from the survey. I will post this to the list, and after a > > discussion period we will aim for a consensus call on it. > > Many thanks in anticipation of your responses! > > > > -- > > > > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 1 16:11:56 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 13:11:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF Message-ID: <457229.33947.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Gentlemen,   Thank you for this frank exchange of factoids and opines. Jean your admiration of Parminders clarity is well reflected in your own.   Could either of you please link us to, or provide yourself, some further illumination of this ITU move into governance that is apart from standard setting in technical matters.   I have studied the checks and balance notion used by many prosperous current governments and have found that in Internet governance a very natural one has occured.  It would be my hope that it remains. That would be what I believe has kept ICANN in its' semblance of working order. (never intended - but eluded to by Postel, USC'96) The bicameral yin and yang nature of the Technical versus the political social. Ease of use or efficiency or domination should not be justification for the weakening of one or the other -- the conflict is natural and maintains balance.   As for GAID. We should never forget that while "aid" itself seems all good and innocuous, it is in fact and historically a tool for directing the aided in the direction desired by the aider and abettor.  It is important that we view this honestly and maintain vigilance and transparency and debate over appropriate attaching of strings. I am sure Mr. Khan would agree. --- On Thu, 12/31/09, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK Subject: Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Parminder" Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 12:48 PM Dear Parminder As usually your message clearifies the debate ; therefore all my thanks. > concrete suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the resolution/ > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the > process will go forward). Isn't there another confusing situation with GAID as far as IG is dealing with Developing Countriers issues are concerned ? If this is the opinion of a majority among us, our relation with -and/or position on- GAID should be laid down accordingly.  > many among us are focusing on just one thing - the > danger that ITU may take over the IGF Right. That is just another point of concern for me. not only because I was working in the (far) past with this Un Agency. I do think that IG needs a strong framework as to be able to apply in any country. Per se ITU isn't qualified for "governance" matters, but it happens to be an intergovernmental body that has a world-wide competence and standardization authority in the ICT/telecom domain, whose circuitry the Internet relies on. That's why I wonder if CS shouldn't rather put its efforts to gain both its place and respect inside this agency. The IGC should also remember that a large part of the CS orgs committed in the WSIS follow-up -especially those working in or with DCs- are struggling for CS being given a plain "ITU member" status.      > there could also be new > options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some > possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have > earlier alluded to. Among these thematic working groups one should deal with some issues related to technical matters such as critical Internet resources, network architecture, network neutrality, etc With my best wishes for a happy and fruitful New Year Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 31/12/09 10:20 > De : "Parminder" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF > > > > Hi All > > While the survey may or may not provide useful inputs for IGC's position > on IGF reform, we should in any case discuss the issue here on the list > so that the coordinators can attempt a consensus position. > > I do think that, in the formal consultation process at Sharm, IGC failed > to provide a comprehensive set of suggestions, even the ones which we > have often discussed in past and adopted by consensus. We may still have > a chance of putting our views forward, now through the channel of > government reps that may be on the lookout for possible good concrete > suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the resolution/ > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the > process will go forward). > > While seeking to trigger a discussion on this subject after Sharm I had > pointed to fact that many among us are focusing on just one thing - the > danger that ITU may take over the IGF, (or even that the IGF may be > closed down), and consequently not engaging as much as we should to > propose real improvements in the IGF. Apparently, the view is that if we > breathe but one word on possible improvements, it may be taken as > statement of failure of the IGF and be used by those keen on shutting > down the IGF, or seeking an ITU take over of it. > > One proof that these fears are hugely exaggerated, and even > diversionary, can be found in the fact that recently a UN general > assembly resolution for more stable public/ UN funding for the IGF > (which some groups tend to equate with possible ITU takeover) was shot > down, and another one calling for more voluntary contributions to the > trust fund (status quoist) was adopted. One can clearly see here who > calls the shots and which way the wind is blowing. > > So lets relax our exaggerated caution, and boldly seek IGF reform of the > kind we have asked for over the years, while there could also be new > options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some > possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have > earlier alluded to. I personally think that we should also seek a > clearer role for the MAG, and more agenda setting power for it, > including of developing recommendations and advices as per the IGF > mandate based on the proceedings of the IGF and other WGs etc. There > could be other possibilities, but we need to discuss them, and maybe > speak out at Feb meeting (even if thats not the agenda) to catch the ear > of some gov reps, and also pass our views on directly to interested gov > reps. > > Have a great last day of 2009, and wake up to a hopeful and fruitful 2010! > > 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 > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jan 2 01:48:56 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 12:18:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF and GAID In-Reply-To: <13638835.69716.1262263722087.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j09> References: <4B3C6C79.6020209@itforchange.net> <13638835.69716.1262263722087.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j09> Message-ID: <4B3EEC58.7090307@itforchange.net> Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Dear Parminder > > As usually your message clearifies the debate ; therefore all my thanks. > > > concrete suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the > resolution/ > > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general > > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the > > process will go forward). > > Isn't there another confusing situation with GAID as far as IG is > dealing with Developing Countriers issues are concerned ? > If this is the opinion of a majority among us, our relation with > -and/or position on- GAID should be laid down accordingly. Dear Jean-Louis, Development has never been a serious political issue at WSIS, and has been even less so post-WSIS. It is for this reason that the levels of interest of major actors and therefore the trajectories of the IGF and GAID have been very different. (It is a different manner that the subject of development is treated as a red herring with such regularity, and often deviousness, in the IGF that it would make a very interesting study/ story.) IG is very political because it concerns the governance, and thus the possibilities of shaping, of the Internet. Development in post-WSIS structures has been seen in largely in the normal 'charity view' of development, plus as new possibilities of political alliances for transnational businesses to expand their markets in developing countries. The fact is that, at present, no major actor of any significant power has really much interest in ICTD at the global level. (UNDP for some strange reasons has mostly withdrawn from this area.) So while IGF seems to be headed towards even keener political contests, GAID, post-Sarbuland, may be headed towards getting folded up into a regular UN department, doing mundane work (thats what I fear). The way GAID was run as a new age network had many huge problems - and we kept pointed them out at all GAID meetings - but it will be a mistake to forgo its open new-age network structure for a bureaucratic UN department. What we need instead is a set of more focussed and clearer objectives and work plans, and a better network structure focussed on public interest actors, chiefly those involved with development issues. Parminder > > > many among us are focusing on just one thing - the > > danger that ITU may take over the IGF > > Right. That is just another point of concern for me. not only because > I was working in the (far) past with this Un Agency. I do think that > IG needs a strong framework as to be able to apply in any country. > /Per se/ ITU isn't qualified for "governance" matters, but it happens > to be an intergovernmental body that has a world-wide competence and > standardization authority in the ICT/telecom domain, whose circuitry > the Internet relies on. That's why I wonder if CS shouldn't rather put > its efforts to gain both its place and respect inside this agency. The > IGC should also remember that a large part of the CS orgs committed in > the WSIS follow-up -especially those working in or with DCs- are > struggling for CS being given a plain "ITU member" status. > > > there could also be new > > options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some > > possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have > > earlier alluded to. > > Among these thematic working groups one should deal with some issues > related to technical matters such as critical Internet resources, > network architecture, network neutrality, etc > > With my best wishes for a happy and fruitful New Year > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > Message du 31/12/09 10:20 > > De : "Parminder" > > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Copie à : > > Objet : Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF > > > > > > > > Hi All > > > > While the survey may or may not provide useful inputs for IGC's > position > > on IGF reform, we should in any case discuss the issue here on > the list > > so that the coordinators can attempt a consensus position. > > > > I do think that, in the formal consultation process at Sharm, > IGC failed > > to provide a comprehensive set of suggestions, even the ones > which we > > have often discussed in past and adopted by consensus. We may > still have > > a chance of putting our views forward, now through the channel of > > government reps that may be on the lookout for possible good > concrete > > suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the > resolution/ > > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general > > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the > > process will go forward). > > > > While seeking to trigger a discussion on this subject after > Sharm I had > > pointed to fact that many among us are focusing on just one > thing - the > > danger that ITU may take over the IGF, (or even that the IGF may be > > closed down), and consequently not engaging as much as we should to > > propose real improvements in the IGF. Apparently, the view is > that if we > > breathe but one word on possible improvements, it may be taken as > > statement of failure of the IGF and be used by those keen on > shutting > > down the IGF, or seeking an ITU take over of it. > > > > One proof that these fears are hugely exaggerated, and even > > diversionary, can be found in the fact that recently a UN general > > assembly resolution for more stable public/ UN funding for the IGF > > (which some groups tend to equate with possible ITU takeover) > was shot > > down, and another one calling for more voluntary contributions > to the > > trust fund (status quoist) was adopted. One can clearly see here > who > > calls the shots and which way the wind is blowing. > > > > So lets relax our exaggerated caution, and boldly seek IGF > reform of the > > kind we have asked for over the years, while there could also be > new > > options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some > > possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things > we have > > earlier alluded to. I personally think that we should also seek a > > clearer role for the MAG, and more agenda setting power for it, > > including of developing recommendations and advices as per the IGF > > mandate based on the proceedings of the IGF and other WGs etc. > There > > could be other possibilities, but we need to discuss them, and > maybe > > speak out at Feb meeting (even if thats not the agenda) to catch > the ear > > of some gov reps, and also pass our views on directly to > interested gov > > reps. > > > > Have a great last day of 2009, and wake up to a hopeful and > fruitful 2010! > > > > 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 > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From email at hakik.org Sat Jan 2 15:49:08 2010 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 20:49:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF and GAID In-Reply-To: <4B3EEC58.7090307@itforchange.net> References: <4B3C6C79.6020209@itforchange.net> <13638835.69716.1262263722087.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j09> <4B3EEC58.7090307@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20100102204944.56A4A90884@npogroups.org> Dear Parminder, I agree with you cent percent, but wish I could have knew those strange reasons that you have mentioned. Not only UNDP, but seems majority of development partners are no more interested in ICTD. For many years, it has become stalled somewhere, when the field was really going to launch in many lagging nations. Hope GAID, as it has been expected could come up with something in this aspect. Best regards, Hakikur At 06:48 02-01-2010, Parminder wrote: >Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >>Dear Parminder >> >>As usually your message clearifies the debate ; therefore all my thanks. >> >> > concrete suggestion for IGF reform, which >> may be taken up when the resolution/ >> > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general >> > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the >> > process will go forward). >> >>Isn't there another confusing situation with >>GAID as far as IG is dealing with Developing Countriers issues are concerned ? >>If this is the opinion of a majority among us, >>our relation with -and/or position on- GAID should be laid down accordingly. >Dear Jean-Louis, > >Development has never been a serious political >issue at WSIS, and has been even less so >post-WSIS. It is for this reason that the levels >of interest of major actors and therefore the >trajectories of the IGF and GAID have been very >different. (It is a different manner that the >subject of development is treated as a red >herring with such regularity, and often >deviousness, in the IGF that it would make a very interesting study/ story.) > >IG is very political because it concerns the >governance, and thus the possibilities of >shaping, of the Internet. Development in >post-WSIS structures has been seen in largely in >the normal 'charity view' of development, plus >as new possibilities of political alliances for >transnational businesses to expand their markets >in developing countries. The fact is that, at >present, no major actor of any significant power >has really much interest in ICTD at the global >level. (UNDP for some strange reasons has mostly withdrawn from this area.) > >So while IGF seems to be headed towards even >keener political contests, GAID, post-Sarbuland, >may be headed towards getting folded up into a >regular UN department, doing mundane work (thats >what I fear). The way GAID was run as a new age >network had many huge problems - and we kept >pointed them out at all GAID meetings - but it >will be a mistake to forgo its open new-age >network structure for a bureaucratic UN >department. What we need instead is a set of >more focussed and clearer objectives and work >plans, and a better network structure focussed >on public interest actors, chiefly those involved with development issues. > >Parminder > >> >> > many among us are focusing on just one thing - the >> > danger that ITU may take over the IGF >> >>Right. That is just another point of concern >>for me. not only because I was working in the >>(far) past with this Un Agency. I do think that >>IG needs a strong framework as to be able to >>apply in any country. Per se ITU isn't >>qualified for "governance" matters, but it >>happens to be an intergovernmental body that >>has a world-wide competence and standardization >>authority in the ICT/telecom domain, whose >>circuitry the Internet relies on. That's why I >>wonder if CS shouldn't rather put its efforts >>to gain both its place and respect inside this >>agency. The IGC should also remember that a >>large part of the CS orgs committed in the WSIS >>follow-up -especially those working in or with >>DCs- are struggling for CS being given a plain "ITU member" status. >> >> > there could also be new >> > options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some >> > possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have >> > earlier alluded to. >> >>Among these thematic working groups one should >>deal with some issues related to technical >>matters such as critical Internet resources, >>network architecture, network neutrality, etc >> >>With my best wishes for a happy and fruitful New Year >>Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> >> >> > Message du 31/12/09 10:20 >> > De : "Parminder" >> > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > Copie à : >> > Objet : Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF >> > >> > >> > >> > Hi All >> > >> > While the survey may or may not provide useful inputs for IGC's position >> > on IGF reform, we should in any case discuss the issue here on the list >> > so that the coordinators can attempt a consensus position. >> > >> > I do think that, in the formal consultation process at Sharm, IGC failed >> > to provide a comprehensive set of suggestions, even the ones which we >> > have often discussed in past and adopted by consensus. We may still have >> > a chance of putting our views forward, now through the channel of >> > government reps that may be on the lookout for possible good concrete >> > suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the resolution/ >> > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general >> > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the >> > process will go forward). >> > >> > While seeking to trigger a discussion on this subject after Sharm I had >> > pointed to fact that many among us are focusing on just one thing - the >> > danger that ITU may take over the IGF, (or even that the IGF may be >> > closed down), and consequently not engaging as much as we should to >> > propose real improvements in the IGF. Apparently, the view is that if we >> > breathe but one word on possible improvements, it may be taken as >> > statement of failure of the IGF and be used by those keen on shutting >> > down the IGF, or seeking an ITU take over of it. >> > >> > One proof that these fears are hugely exaggerated, and even >> > diversionary, can be found in the fact that recently a UN general >> > assembly resolution for more stable public/ UN funding for the IGF >> > (which some groups tend to equate with possible ITU takeover) was shot >> > down, and another one calling for more voluntary contributions to the >> > trust fund (status quoist) was adopted. One can clearly see here who >> > calls the shots and which way the wind is blowing. >> > >> > So lets relax our exaggerated caution, and boldly seek IGF reform of the >> > kind we have asked for over the years, while there could also be new >> > options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some >> > possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have >> > earlier alluded to. I personally think that we should also seek a >> > clearer role for the MAG, and more agenda setting power for it, >> > including of developing recommendations and advices as per the IGF >> > mandate based on the proceedings of the IGF and other WGs etc. There >> > could be other possibilities, but we need to discuss them, and maybe >> > speak out at Feb meeting (even if thats not the agenda) to catch the ear >> > of some gov reps, and also pass our views on directly to interested gov >> > reps. >> > >> > Have a great last day of 2009, and wake up to a hopeful and fruitful 2010! >> > >> > Parminder >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ronda.netizen at gmail.com Sat Jan 2 16:23:29 2010 From: ronda.netizen at gmail.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 16:23:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGF and GAID In-Reply-To: <20100102204948.A22B59091E@npogroups.org> References: <4B3C6C79.6020209@itforchange.net> <13638835.69716.1262263722087.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j09> <4B3EEC58.7090307@itforchange.net> <20100102204948.A22B59091E@npogroups.org> Message-ID: Does anyone know what are the actual plans for the future of GAID? It is good to see there is some discussion of it on these lists, but I am wondering what is the actual plan for it, if there is one being planned or in the process of being implemented? I have proposed that those interested in integrating Internet development in the development process have much to learn from studying and discussing the actual development process that built the Internet. When I returned home from the WSIS meeting in Tunis in 2005, I had some discussion with someone who described the struggle in his country in Africa, over how to spread the Internet. The experience he described was about how commercial entities wanted to limit how the Internet was used. Meanwhile there some in government who recognized that there was a need to spread the Internet at a low cost, especially in the education sector. He described the government idea of wiring a government building and then using that to offer low cost or free Internet education to the school systems nearby. Instead those interested in commercial development claimed the wiring of the government building should only serve the government site. The struggle between these two visions of Internet development was not unique to that country, as I had experienced a similar struggle in the US. It seemed reviewing both the vision guiding early networking development and the history of how the Internet was developed and spread in its early phases, would be of value in general, and in particular to the developing world. Unfortunately, those drafting the millennium development goals didn't find a way to build in this kind of focus into the goals themselves. Happy New Year to all. with best wishes Ronda On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Hakikur Rahman wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > I agree with you cent percent, but wish I could have knew those strange > reasons that you have mentioned. Not only UNDP, but seems majority of > development partners are no more interested in ICTD. For many years, it has > become stalled somewhere, when the field was really going to launch in many > lagging nations. Hope GAID, as it has been expected could come up with > something in this aspect. > > Best regards, > Hakikur > > At 06:48 02-01-2010, Parminder wrote: > > > Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > Dear Parminder > > As usually your message clearifies the debate ; therefore all my thanks. > > > concrete suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the > resolution/ > > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general > > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the > > process will go forward). > > Isn't there another confusing situation with GAID as far as IG is dealing > with Developing Countriers issues are concerned ? > If this is the opinion of a majority among us, our relation with -and/or > position on- GAID should be laid down accordingly. > > Dear Jean-Louis, > > Development has never been a serious political issue at WSIS, and has been > even less so post-WSIS. It is for this reason that the levels of interest of > major actors and therefore the trajectories of the IGF and GAID have been > very different. (It is a different manner that the subject of development is > treated as a red herring with such regularity, and often deviousness, in the > IGF that it would make a very interesting study/ story.) > > IG is very political because it concerns the governance, and thus the > possibilities of shaping, of the Internet. Development in post-WSIS > structures has been seen in largely in the normal 'charity view' of > development, plus as new possibilities of political alliances for > transnational businesses to expand their markets in developing countries. > The fact is that, at present, no major actor of any significant power has > really much interest in ICTD at the global level. (UNDP for some strange > reasons has mostly withdrawn from this area.) > > So while IGF seems to be headed towards even keener political contests, > GAID, post-Sarbuland, may be headed towards getting folded up into a regular > UN department, doing mundane work (thats what I fear). The way GAID was run > as a new age network had many huge problems - and we kept pointed them out > at all GAID meetings - but it will be a mistake to forgo its open new-age > network structure for a bureaucratic UN department. What we need instead is > a set of more focussed and clearer objectives and work plans, and a better > network structure focussed on public interest actors, chiefly those involved > with development issues. > > 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 > > -- Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Sat Jan 2 20:47:38 2010 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 02:47:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B3FF73A.2010401@zedat.fu-berlin.de> McTim schrieb: > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Parminder > wrote: > Secondly, I will move away only if I knew what logic/ algorithm > Google used, and so I can decide if it works for me or not. > > Either it works or it doesn't. If PageRank doesn't give you what you > need, then try Yahoo or Bing. We, as IGC (or even CS asa whole) can't > expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we? > While we are at it, why don't we insist that coca-cola publish their > recipe for Coke or that KFC tell us exactly what their secret recipe is? While I agree with McTim that "search engine neutrality" and NN are two different things, I would like to add that Google can provide the services it does also because of network effects. Once you are socially "forced" to use google wave or other collaborative tools, it's much more difficult to just ignore it. The same argument has been made about Facebook and the likes before, and Google may be moving into this direction. And if you use it, they can use it for persoalized search results, which may be better for each person than the competitors can offer. So: There is a diference between networked technologies and simple consumption goods such as KFC or Cola. > So can we at least ask it to publish its logic of arranging search > results so the consumers can make a choice. It is a wrong thing to ask? > > yes I would say "no" at least if it involves personaly identifyable data. If thiey use data about me, they should tell me what they know about me and how they treat me based on that. But the underlying conflict here seems to be that McTim and Lauren see TCP/IP networks as "the network" to be subject to NN regulations. Others see platforms/networks based on TCP/IP - such as Facebook, Google, but also OpenID and related functional providers - as a new and emerging network. Just like umpty years ago, people would see the copper wire network as "the network", and not yet understand that TCP/IP on top of it was "the network" to be regulated in the future. Bottom line: Don't under-estimate the emergence of networks at layer 7. Open quuestion: Is this a case for "internet governance", or just for "network governance"? Best, Ralf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Jan 2 21:04:22 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 07:04:22 +0500 Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF and projects In-Reply-To: <4B3CD211.3010602@gmail.com> References: <4B3C6C79.6020209@itforchange.net> <4B3CD211.3010602@gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f71001021804n28dff8a5ge3fdb197316f6a80@mail.gmail.com> > A statement of input to the IGF Secretariat before the Jan. 15 deadline and/or for the OC (Jeremy, Fouad?) Hi Ginger and all, please read this because this a very important understanding we have to develop if I am to take upon a responsibility for my group: I'm already in on this and we need more input of our members because the IGC is because of its membership unless we understand why we need our statements in the first place and for which occasion we need statements as well as how can we structure a dynamic response group within the MAG and how our statements can make an impact from the OC to the MAG and then finally at the IGF. WHO DO WE REPRESENT AND HOW As you have seen how the Open Consultations and the MAG meetings take place, participants and members of a particular stakeholder group take active stand over issues together and they struggle to ensure that they push it through. Let's say that we take the private sector for example, an XYZ company says that they think this and that and a particular issues about abc should be brought into the main program of the IGF. You would immediately see the parent body/group/caucus declare a statement that the IIMNOP supports XYZ company's statement and would like to re-emphasize issues about abc should be brought into the main program of the IGF. They protect, they back, they coordinate and they construct effective response and backing papers in light of their member's statements. WE DO NOT AND THIS MUST BE FIXED The above is what I noted that probably Kati (when she shared that we should produce working policy papers, documents to help us during the meetings, show our members interests and back those interests) and other new IGC MAG members were feeling in the open consultations/MAG meeting that IGC despite having a good amount of its representatives there in both has no strong active live procedure to take this into account. Each IGC member group/community/organization/representative after giving its stance does not get the backing statement from IGC like the private sector and governments get from that group that leads them. If we don't learn from this and mend our approach, we will never be in a position to counter the pressure that builds up and we cannot even shake it. WE NEED TO KNOW OUR RESPONSE AND COUNTERING METHODOLOGY IS What is right has to be adopted and has to be done in the right manner. First of all before I attempt to run through the lists and pick up concerns of the members of IGC, I want us to read a primary structural agreement that IGC's participating members in Open Consultations and MAG meetings are to be allowed to present that IGC as being present in both OC's and MAG meetings and that whenever one member group/organization/representative from the IGC multistakeholder group makes a statement, a representative or a group of representatives (so that we can balance the response when a member is out of the room for a water/coffee/rest break) can continue to press and strengthen IGCs position as a stakeholder and counter negative propaganda. WE HAVE TO SHOW WE ARE THERE AND WE BACK OUR MEMBERS AND WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT I appreciate what Jeremy is trying to do in his profound role but we have to realize that co-ordinators help reach a decision, not construct the decision or encourage construction of the decision unless they want to develop a rough consensus based decision when the membership can't reach any decision. This survey can be just that but it is a time-waster for those that will be in the OCs and MAG meetings in February because in the OCs you can only give a 2-3 minutes (otherwise you are cut short by the Chair to facilitate other stakeholders as well) to share statements from IGC on this issue but in the MAG we cannot discuss this unless the Chair particularly asks for comments on such an issue because the MAG plans the proposed program of the IGF and that is why I felt that the survey wasn't reflecting what the MAG actually is doing and secondly for any change two other stakeholders will also be consulted that is the Governments and the Private sector. WE HAVE TO REALIZE WHAT ROLE WE ARE PLAYING AND STRENGTHEN THE WEAK SPOTS AND STOP COUNTERING OURSELVES IN THE PROCESS INSTEAD OF COUNTERING WHAT REALLY HAS TO BE I would also like to emphasize here that if the IGC doesn't utilize both its OC participation and MAG representatives in the MAG to their fullest or at at least at an equal counter level to the other stakeholder groups of the multistakeholdership that have been countering us on the issues of Human Rights and the Development Agenda and numerous other areas, we are doing something wrong and we are trying to grab the same from either side without realizing that we are not strengthening ourselves as the key member of the multistakeholdership within our position. Our statements go in vain when all our members and representatives aren't on the same page where as the private sector or government sector makes one statement and every member and parent association backs their statement because it serves their common good and they lobby too. CIVIL SOCIETY MORNING MEETING IS A GOOD IDEA BUT WITH ONLY ONE PERSON WITH THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOESN'T EMPOWER THE REST OF THE GROUP FOR BACKUP - WE HAVE TO BE OPEN ABOUT OUR AGENDAS Let me show you where we bring a certain amount of change. The issue about Youth and Gender Balance got some great deal of support from everyone combined. A great deal of member stakeholders of the multistakeholdership encouraged the secretariat to look into this and there was less resistance. Interestingly, during lunch break or maybe it was tea break we tried to meet with each of our member/representative and request them to share their views on this and then the next two hours, almost each one of our member/representative present backed each other. The message was simple, the IGC came in strong and we got a strong level of backing from our members/reps present. That was the IGC. SOMETHING WORKED REALLY GOOD IN BETWEEN US - WE HAVE A WONDERFUL CHEMISTRY, IT SHOULDN'T BE CONTROLLED - WE SHOULD ADOPT THE STARFISH MODEL NOT THE SPIDER MODEL - WE CAN FEEL EACHOTHER Now during the IGF, apart from Ginger's address as a speaker, there were hardly any statements from the IGC nor did many members of the IGC on the floor make a statement that "The IGC Feels" whereas the transcripts are full of the governments groups (EU, Commonwealth etc.) and the private sector (ICC, ICANN, CISCO, etc....) making continuous statements and countering the debate. I for one moment stood up and started by saying we from the developing world. Who was we? See that's what happens when we operate in a controlled environment but which is neither actually controlled or has no controllers. We have to work together as IGC members and representatives and protect the interests of the IGC be that a ten-pointer, fifty-pointer, 100-pointer or whatever we can build consensus upon and take that forward from the OC's to the MAG and to the IGF and show our stakeholders. We should be free to make IGC background material and take statements and make statements at the Open Consultations from IGC for IGC, protecting its members interests and concerns and defining the way forward given by its members. LETS FIX WHAT WE NEED TO FIX FROM WITHIN AND THEN TELL THE WORLD WHAT THEY NEED TO FIX Our, APC's and the IRP statements would be very similar I feel because those statements are all going in separate statements but we can put them together in one too if they feel that the IGC is their representative group and will be able to voice and protect their interests and concerns. So our statement has a strong foundation for our OC and MAG participants and we can continuously reference that and keep raising our already accepted statements. LETS WORK ON THIS AND IMPROVE OUR ENGAGEMENT IN THE IGF THE IGC APPEALS TEAM (according to the IGC charter): In the end, as a member of the IGC Appeals Team, I would like to share with members that you have democracy to voice your concerns. As the Appeals team, we are a team of five (5) IGC members Appeals Team (selected in 2009) Jeanette Hofmann (Europe), Adam Peake (Asia), Carlos Afonso (LAC), Ken Lohento (Africa) and Myself (Mid East/South Asia) and the Coordinators are not qualified to be members of the appeals team. Our IGC duties: Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the information they collect and discussion, they will decide on the merit of the appeal. Decisions by the appeals team are based on a majority vote of the appeal team, i.e., three (3) or more votes, except in the case of coordinator recall which requires full consensus. The decision of the appeals team will be final on every decision reviewed. Will all the Appeals Team members please share their email addresses with me if I haven't gotten in touch with anyone in order to be able to communicate where needed and required? Mine is displayed in the from of this message. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > I agree with Jean-Louis, Parminder and others that we must see "Jeremy's" > online survey as an informal tool to get a feel for the ideas to be > expressed in an IGC statement. Writing a statistically valid survey is a lot > of work and a long process, in my opinion, not necessary in this case. I > again suggest that those who want to opine take the survey and use the text > boxes or the email list to express opinions not clearly stated in the > survey, or to ask questions if clarifications are needed. > > Jeremy, thanks for taking on this project. I look forward to your first > proposal for discussion on the topic. > > As soon the new year starts (tomorrow and on!!!) we can get moving on other > proposals, such as reviewing the membership (Parminder, Rui, Antonio Medina, > myself ) > > The Web Page (Jeremy?) > > Voting and charter reviews (Paul? Craig? Fearghas?) others > > A statement of input to the IGF Secretariat before the Jan. 15 deadline > and/or for the OC (Jeremy, Fouad?) > > GAID discussion (Michael G and others) > > Other topics to continue, such as improving the IGC working format. > > I look forward to an exciting and productive 2010 working with all of you. > Please do join the discussion to make sure we hear all voices. > > Best wishes, > Ginger > > > > Parminder wrote: > > Hi All > > While the survey may or may not provide useful inputs for IGC's position on > IGF reform, we should in any case discuss the issue here on the list so that > the coordinators can attempt a consensus position. > > I do think that, in the formal consultation process at Sharm, IGC failed to > provide a comprehensive set of suggestions, even the ones which we have > often discussed in past and adopted by consensus. We may still have a chance > of putting our views forward, now through the channel of government reps > that may be on the lookout for possible good concrete suggestion for IGF > reform, which may be taken up when the resolution/ discussion on IGF > continuation  finally comes up at the UN general assembly or at the CSTD > (there is a confusion at this stage how the process will go forward). > > While seeking to trigger a discussion on this subject after Sharm I had > pointed to fact that many among us are focusing on just one thing  - the > danger that ITU may take over the IGF, (or even that the IGF may be closed > down), and consequently not engaging as much as we should to propose real > improvements in the IGF. Apparently, the view is that if we breathe but one > word on possible improvements, it may be taken as statement of failure of > the IGF and be used by those keen on shutting down the IGF, or seeking an > ITU take over of it. > > One proof that these fears are hugely exaggerated, and even diversionary, > can be found in the fact that recently a UN general assembly resolution > for  more stable public/ UN funding  for the IGF  (which some groups tend to > equate with possible ITU takeover) was shot down, and another one calling > for more voluntary contributions to the trust fund  (status quoist)  was > adopted. One can clearly see here who calls the shots and which way the wind > is blowing. > > So lets relax our exaggerated caution, and boldly seek IGF reform of the > kind we have asked for over the years, while there could also be new > options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some > possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have > earlier alluded to. I personally think that we should also seek a clearer > role for the MAG, and more agenda setting power for it, including of > developing recommendations and advices as per the IGF mandate based on the > proceedings of the IGF and other WGs etc. There could be other > possibilities, but we need to discuss them, and maybe speak out at Feb > meeting (even if thats not the agenda) to catch the ear of some gov reps, > and also pass our views on directly to interested gov reps. > > Have a great last day of 2009, and wake up to a hopeful and fruitful 2010! > > Parminder > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From toml at communisphere.com Sun Jan 3 01:47:28 2010 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 01:47:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <00ff01ca8c40$9f09b6d0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> McTim, I disagree with two points you made in your 12-29-09 comments on search neutrality. First, you said: "Either it works or it doesn't. If PageRank doesn't give you what you need, then try Yahoo or Bing." I look at search and its impact on local governance and worry about an instance like this. Google seeks to build an intellectually stimulating office facility for its growing staff in New York City and feels that privatizing a park is the best way to accomplish this - following the example the New York Yankees set with their new stadium. Some park neighbors get riled up, go to the Net, and do a search for "opponents to the Google variance." What lists first is a milquetoast advocacy group that opposes certain aspects of the development but sees overall advantage from the construction jobs and to the economy. Perhaps there are other listings and a Google ad or two that point to materials supportive of this viewpoint. And perhaps Milquetoast has an agreement with Google to meliorate neighborhood impacts. Here's my concern and the problem: How are the neighbors to know what's not there? If Google hand-wires the results to suite its needs, overriding its secret proprietary sauce, how are the atomized neighbors to know there are others opposed to the development? How are they to know to go to Bing? I suspect many would conclude, "Gee, no one else cares. Maybe I'm wrong?" And Google wins. Of course education is the answer. And we've plans to develop curriculum that begins in the 3rd grade and to educates the public at all levels as to civic ills that might arise by putting too much trust in one search engine. But this is likely to take a decade or so to permeate society. (Before I move to my second point of disagreement let me slip in another example. Imagine we're a few years down the road and Google "winner$" begin running for public office. How are we to trust its opaque search algorithm during the rough and tumble of an election campaign? Then we'll clearly see the relationship between link and ballot voting! And even if Google didn't hand-wire, opponents would surely charge that it did, poisoning the system.) Second, when you say, "We, as IGC (or even CS as a whole) can't expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we?" I disagree. Given the importance of search in the development of civic attitudes - like the newspapers and TV of old - I think it's vital that we address the issue. Here's a path. Initially we make the importance of "search transparency" known to Google and encourage them to provide their secret sauce's recipe. (I prefer "search transparency" to "search neutrality" as it is a somewhat easier to devise a metric.) Google has capitalized their search lead and integrated it into a plethora of other services and should be able to keep their lead for the foreseeable future, and might be prescient to see the poisoning possibility and be agreeable to the need to move toward transparency. Perhaps they might initially agree to a trusted outsider initially, a Moody's-like entity to judge all search engines. And if Google doesn't see the light, perhaps Bing might take a lead in offering transparent search. And if the search industry doesn't see the necessity - no one steps in - it's incumbent on civil society to educate the public and decision makers about the impact of search opacity and encourage the development of a transparent search engine. Tom Lowenhaupt, Founder and Chair Connecting.nyc Inc. connectingnyc.org ----- Original Message ----- From: McTim To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 12:43 PM Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Parminder wrote: McTim So you agree with Lauren that urgent regulatory action is needed to ensure network neutrality, Urgent, no, action, well if the FCC principles, are a form of "action", then yes. and that efforts to confuse this issue should be resisted. yes Efforts at confusion like the arguments " that Internet content edge-caching (like that used by Akamai, Amazon, Google, and many other Web services) somehow violates net neutrality principles -- clearly a false assertion." (quoting the article you forwarded.) That to me is a great improvement on whatever I have ever heard you speak on network neutrality on this list :). (And i remember the precise 'confusing argument' of edge catching got discussed during NN discussions on this list.) So congrats to us, we are in a rare agreement. This is entirely in line with what I have argued in the past. I am abig fan of NN, always have been, I think we just used a different definition of NN. However, what goes past me is that while i agree that when FCC is discussing NN, it is of no avail, and even reprehensible, for the implicated parties to point fingers at Google alleging another kind of anti-competitive practice, I cant see how Adam Raff's article can be criticized on this account. He mentions NN only in the passing in the opening para just to show that Google itself is not all smelling of roses. Also there is definitely a connection between NN practices and allegations about Google, both being anti-competitive activities. What connection is that? Rest of the article has to be dealt on its own merit, not only in terms of muddying waters in the NN debate. That is unfair. Adam clearly supports NN regulation, but he has a right to go ahead and make his case against Google. And it is not an ordinary article - it is a NYT op-ed, and so if Google has something to say or refute it must issue a rejoinder. http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html Just addressing one main points of Lauren's blog in defense of Google which seems so shallow. It is roughly the assertion, I have often earlier also heard, that with one click one can switch search engines. A powerful actor telling weaker dependent groups that they always have the option to move away is a old trick, and mostly a cruel one. I wont expand on this but I think everyone can understand this. I certainly don't. I have moved away from lots of search engines/homepages/and other web services over the decades. Secondly, I will move away only if I knew what logic/ algorithm Google used, and so I can decide if it works for me or not. Either it works or it doesn't. If PageRank doesn't give you what you need, then try Yahoo or Bing. We, as IGC (or even CS asa whole) can't expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we? While we are at it, why don't we insist that coca-cola publish their recipe for Coke or that KFC tell us exactly what their secret recipe is? \ So can we at least ask it to publish its logic of arranging search results so the consumers can make a choice. It is a wrong thing to ask? yes So what really is Lauren's blog trying to do by being so defensive about Google and what exactly you are agreeing with is not clear to me. I agree with the below paragraph. "Fundamentally, Google has simply provided better products, that more people want to use. And anyone else is free to do the same thing, at least as long as ISPs aren't permitted to strangle the Internet playing field via their total hold over Internet access to all sites!" (From Luaran's blog) Happy New Year, McTim ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Sun Jan 3 07:17:49 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 14:17:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Where do we want to go with this discussion on search neutrality? Message-ID: The discussion started off as a posting on interesting reading on the subject and we are now already on thought control and what we are allowed to read, which I believe is an extreme exaggeration of anything that Google might be capable of or would want to do! What exactly is the issue with Google's personal data policy? Google cannot have any information on you that you or an institution allowed to have your data does not put out there. So, if your paycheck all of a sudden becomes public knowledge, don't blame google - blame your employer, your social security institutions or your government. If you social security details are out there, as happened in the UK not too long ago, don't blame google. Blame inept network and server management and poor security. And what exactly is Germany up to with its ELENA System, retaining Germans' payroll data in one central government controlled server? In a networked world there will be a leak before they even get it fully operational. If Peter Schaar, who heads Germany's Data Protection and Freedom of Information Commission is concerned, then we should too. What does google have to do with that? There is legislation out on access to personal data, so if there have been violations, we have recourse. What is the issue if google favours products of xyz comany? Is that not the norm at the supermarket? Don't they get paid to place Avis Chocolates in a more visible position that Siva Chocolates? When you get your supermarket flier in your newspaper do you find any of the lesser known products or do you find the big sellers? Why can I use my frequent flier card on some airlines and not others? Whatever you are looking for is there. However, business pay a lot of money to ensure that their products come up first. Other pay for prominence. Brand promotion and advertising are integral elements of business. Now, if Google is deliberately concealing or omitting results, that would be a case for concern. Is there any evidence that this occurs? What about all this talk about competitors going out because of the google onslaught? That is the market, isn't it? Besides for genuine dominant player abuse and monopoly concerns, if a business goes belly up because it can't compete with the competition, that it means it wasn't good enough or they lost touch with the users. Where is AltaVista? It was bigger then Google. Same with browsers, where is NetScape? We have businesses going under all the time. Where are all the sweets, biscuits and drinks your used to enjoy as a kid? Most o them are gone. And we have NEW ones coming up all the time. Netscape is gone, but we now have Opera, Firefox, Safari etc. There are a hundred search engines out there. And there is nothing to stop a small player from becoming a giant. The world is full of such examples. And Google, with all the acquisitions, NEVER bought out a search competitor to corner the market - yes, it bought out other operators that enabled its system to deploy the various add-ons, but it does not buy search engine users. Which is not what we can say for Coca-Cola, SABMiller and others that grow not out of conquering customers one by one, but by buying up or merging with competitors. So before talking of regulations and whatever else, should we as civil society not be looking at self-regulation? If there is enough concern, then why can't we work with the search engines for a code of conduct for the industry? A consumer ombud for each search engine and a council for the industry with wide representation as is the case (for example) with the German public broadcaster? Best regards, and a great 2010 for everybody. -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Sun Jan 3 07:45:28 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 14:45:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Where do we want to go with this discussion on search neutrality? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: PS: Here, a list of more than 150 search engines or search applications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines 2010/1/3 Rui Correia : > The discussion started off as a posting on interesting reading on the > subject and we are now already on thought control and what we are > allowed to read, which I believe is an extreme exaggeration of > anything that Google might be capable of or would want to do! > > What exactly is the issue with Google's personal data policy? > > Google cannot have any information on you that you or an institution > allowed to have your data does not put out there. So, if your paycheck > all of a sudden becomes public knowledge, don't blame google - blame > your employer, your social security institutions or your government. > If you social security details are out there, as happened in the UK > not too long ago, don't blame google. Blame inept network and server > management and poor security. And what exactly is Germany up to with > its ELENA System, retaining Germans' payroll data in one central > government controlled server? In a networked world there will be a > leak before they even get it fully operational. If Peter Schaar, who > heads Germany's Data Protection and Freedom of Information Commission > is concerned, then we should too. What does google have to do with > that? > > There is legislation out on access to personal data, so if there have > been violations, we have recourse. > > What is the issue if google favours products of xyz comany? > > Is that not the norm at the supermarket? Don't they get paid to place > Avis Chocolates in a more visible position that Siva Chocolates? When > you get your supermarket flier in your newspaper do you find any of > the lesser known products or do you find the big sellers? Why can I > use my frequent flier card on some airlines and not others? > > Whatever you are looking for is there. However, business pay a lot of > money to ensure that their products come up first. Other pay for > prominence. Brand promotion and advertising are integral elements of > business. > > Now, if Google is deliberately concealing or omitting results, that > would be a case for concern. Is there any evidence that this occurs? > > What about all this talk about competitors going out because of the > google onslaught? > > That is the market, isn't it? Besides for genuine dominant player > abuse and monopoly concerns, if a business goes belly up because it > can't compete with the competition, that it means it wasn't good > enough or they lost touch with the users. Where is AltaVista? It was > bigger then Google. Same with browsers, where is NetScape? We have > businesses going under all the time. Where are all the sweets, > biscuits and drinks your used to enjoy as a kid? Most o them are gone. > And we have NEW ones coming up all the time. Netscape is gone, but we > now have Opera, Firefox, Safari etc. There are a hundred search > engines out there. And there is nothing to stop a small player from > becoming a giant. The world is full of such examples. > > And Google, with all the acquisitions, NEVER bought out a search > competitor to corner the market - yes, it bought out other operators > that enabled its system to deploy the various add-ons, but it does not > buy search engine users. Which is not what we can say for Coca-Cola, > SABMiller and others that grow not out of conquering customers one by > one, but by buying up or merging with competitors. > > So before talking of regulations and whatever else, should we as civil > society not be looking at self-regulation? If there is enough concern, > then why can't we work with the search engines for a code of conduct > for the industry? A consumer ombud for each search engine and a > council for the industry with wide representation as is the case (for > example) with the German public broadcaster? > > Best regards, > > and a great 2010 for everybody. > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Jan 3 11:08:34 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 08:08:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF and projects II Message-ID: <552663.39790.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Fouad thank you for your lengthy discourse -- some clarification first.  If my post seems antagonistic or critical - deal with it. --- On Sun, 1/3/10, Fouad Bajwa wrote: WHO DO WE REPRESENT AND HOW I am unaware of any representatives be elected aroung this list????  They protect, they back, they coordinate and they construct effective response and backing papers in light of their member's statements. WE DO NOT AND THIS MUST BE FIXED Do we have the same mandate as they do - are we adversarial or advocates??? we will never be in a position to counter the pressure that builds up and we cannot even shake it. WE NEED TO KNOW OUR RESPONSE AND COUNTERING METHODOLOGY IS I understood us to be in a mode of logic and persuasion and discourse and enlightenment not debate.  Are we to be in a position of power? . WE HAVE TO SHOW WE ARE THERE AND WE BACK OUR MEMBERS AND WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT I do not think so,,, I think we have to show the genuineness and propriety of our input not support for individuals or a particular political agenda WE HAVE TO REALIZE WHAT ROLE WE ARE PLAYING AND STRENGTHEN THE WEAK SPOTS AND STOP COUNTERING OURSELVES IN THE PROCESS INSTEAD OF COUNTERING WHAT REALLY HAS TO BE I think that maybe we should be about listening and suggesting and lending critical thinking - not countering and winning.  aren't on the same page where as the private sector or government sector makes one statement and every member and parent association backs their statement because it serves their common good and they lobby too. CIVIL SOCIETY MORNING MEETING IS A GOOD IDEA BUT WITH ONLY ONE PERSON WITH THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOESN'T EMPOWER THE REST OF THE GROUP FOR BACKUP - WE HAVE TO BE OPEN ABOUT OUR AGENDAS We should not have that type of "agenda" - a subject outline but not a strategy. SOMETHING WORKED REALLY GOOD IN BETWEEN US - WE HAVE A WONDERFUL CHEMISTRY, IT SHOULDN'T BE CONTROLLED - WE SHOULD ADOPT THE STARFISH MODEL NOT THE SPIDER MODEL - WE CAN FEEL EACHOTHER Synergy is good - but what you outline is a governance of people and not laws -- troublesome. Now during the IGF, apart from Ginger's address as a speaker, there were hardly any statements from the IGC nor did many members of the IGC on the floor make a statement that "The IGC Feels" whereas the transcripts are full of the governments groups (EU, Commonwealth etc.) and the private sector (ICC, ICANN, CISCO, etc....) making continuous statements and countering the debate. I for one moment stood up and started by saying we from the developing world. Who was we? See that's what happens when we operate in a controlled environment but which is neither actually controlled or has no controllers. We have to work together as IGC members and representatives and protect the interests of the IGC be that a ten-pointer, fifty-pointer, 100-pointer or whatever we can build consensus upon and take that forward from the OC's to the MAG and to the IGF and show our stakeholders. We should be free to make IGC background material and take statements and make statements at the Open Consultations from IGC for IGC, protecting its members interests and concerns and defining the way forward given by its members. LETS FIX WHAT WE NEED TO FIX FROM WITHIN AND THEN TELL THE WORLD WHAT THEY NEED TO FIX We are not rulers,,, we are not elected, our only important governance within is the promotion of intellectual participation and debate along with freedom of thought and expression Our, APC's and the IRP statements would be very similar I feel because those statements are all going in separate statements but we can put them together in one too if they feel that the IGC is their representative group and will be able to voice and protect their interests and concerns. So our statement has a strong foundation for our OC and MAG participants and we can continuously reference that and keep raising our already accepted statements. LETS WORK ON THIS AND IMPROVE OUR ENGAGEMENT IN THE IGF Perhaps you mean "interface". THE IGC APPEALS TEAM (according to the IGC charter): In the end, as a member of the IGC Appeals Team, I would like to share with members that you have democracy to voice your concerns. As the Appeals team, we are a team of five (5) IGC members Appeals Team (selected in 2009) Jeanette Hofmann (Europe), Adam Peake (Asia), Carlos Afonso (LAC), Ken Lohento (Africa) and Myself (Mid East/South Asia) and the Coordinators are not qualified to be members of the appeals team. Our IGC duties:  Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the information they collect and discussion, they will decide on the merit of the appeal. Decisions by the appeals team are based on a majority vote of the appeal team, i.e., three (3) or more votes, except in the case of coordinator recall which requires full consensus. The decision of the appeals team will be final on every decision reviewed. Sounds so ominous and formal - are folks entitled to a court appointed attorney ;-) Will all the Appeals Team members please share their email addresses with me if I haven't gotten in touch with anyone in order to be able to communicate where needed and required? Mine is displayed in the from of this message. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Jan 3 11:09:57 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 08:09:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF and projects I Message-ID: <160114.42528.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Fouad,   I suggest that this type of ultimatum language be considered very thoroughly before being used.  You are being given a privilege to muddle through the torture of organizing intellectuals.  You are faced with very aggravating circumstances that thwart doing what you want. Brutal indeed. But personal. Perhaps best to save histrionics for substantive issues like life and death and health and wealth.   You probably could have made all these points much easier had you just given one line recommendations for each paragraph. Over the past 15 years or so we have found it useful to confide in another and vent frustrations off list. Then come to the list with solutions,, proposed that is.   (however do not go too far) Democratic notions require that the Tea breaks and such "back room" decisions not be made. That agreements and debates be on the record and open and transparent.  What you have chronicled is not optimum -- maybe more collegiate and social but not in keeping with good governance.   I read every word you wrote - twice. I think you are right where you are supposed to be and I think good progress is being made because of very good people like you.   --- On Sun, 1/3/10, Fouad Bajwa fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote: > A statement of input to the IGF Secretariat before the Jan. 15 deadline and/or for the OC (Jeremy, Fouad?) Hi Ginger and all, please read this because this a very important understanding we have to develop if I am to take upon a responsibility for my group: I'm already in on this and we need more input of our members because the IGC is because of its membership unless we understand why we need our statements in the first place and for which occasion we need statements as well as how can we structure a dynamic response group within the MAG and how our statements can make an impact from the OC to the MAG and then finally at the IGF. WHO DO WE REPRESENT AND HOW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Jan 3 11:28:10 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 08:28:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <00ff01ca8c40$9f09b6d0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Message-ID: <4786.49402.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Still sounds like you want to "eminant domain" Google's enterprise to make it say what you want it to.  Got to go -- Orwells' police are at the door -- I was thinking about my Chargers beating the Federal Capital Redskins.   (for what it is worth -- I would like to have you have more say over search engine results--Then again I like my gov. owned parks) --- On Sun, 1/3/10, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: From: Thomas Lowenhaupt Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "McTim" Date: Sunday, January 3, 2010, 6:47 AM McTim,   I disagree with two points you made in your 12-29-09 comments on search neutrality.   First, you said:   "Either it works or it doesn't. If PageRank doesn't give you what you need, then try Yahoo or Bing."    I look at search and its impact on local governance and worry about an instance like this. Google seeks to build an intellectually stimulating office facility for its growing staff in New York City and feels that privatizing a park is the best way to accomplish this - following the example the New York Yankees set with their new stadium.   Some park neighbors get riled up, go to the Net, and do a search for "opponents to the Google variance." What lists first is a milquetoast advocacy group that opposes certain aspects of the development but sees overall advantage from the construction jobs and to the economy. Perhaps there are other listings and a Google ad or two that point to materials supportive of this viewpoint. And perhaps Milquetoast has an agreement with Google to meliorate neighborhood impacts.   Here’s my concern and the problem: How are the neighbors to know what's not there?   If Google hand-wires the results to suite its needs, overriding its secret proprietary sauce, how are the atomized neighbors to know there are others opposed to the development? How are they to know to go to Bing? I suspect many would conclude, “Gee, no one else cares. Maybe I’m wrong?” And Google wins.   Of course education is the answer. And we've plans to develop curriculum that begins in the 3rd grade and to educates the public at all levels as to civic ills that might arise by putting too much trust in one search engine. But this is likely to take a decade or so to permeate society.   (Before I move to my second point of disagreement let me slip in another example. Imagine we’re a few years down the road and Google “winner$” begin running for public office. How are we to trust its opaque search algorithm during the rough and tumble of an election campaign? Then we’ll clearly see the relationship between link and ballot voting! And even if Google didn’t hand-wire, opponents would surely charge that it did, poisoning the system.)   Second, when you say,   "We, as IGC (or even CS as a whole) can't expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we?"   I disagree. Given the importance of search in the development of civic attitudes - like the newspapers and TV of old - I think it’s vital that we address the issue.   Here’s a path. Initially we make the importance of “search transparency” known to Google and encourage them to provide their secret sauce’s recipe. (I prefer “search transparency” to “search neutrality” as it is a somewhat easier to devise a metric.)   Google has capitalized their search lead and integrated it into a plethora of other services and should be able to keep their lead for the foreseeable future, and might be prescient to see the poisoning possibility and be agreeable to the need to move toward transparency.  Perhaps they might initially agree to a trusted outsider initially, a Moody’s-like entity to judge all search engines. And if Google doesn’t see the light, perhaps Bing might take a lead in offering transparent search.   And if the search industry doesn’t see the necessity – no one steps in - it’s incumbent on civil society to educate the public and decision makers about the impact of search opacity and encourage the development of a transparent search engine.   Tom Lowenhaupt, Founder and Chair Connecting.nyc Inc. connectingnyc.org   ----- Original Message ----- From: McTim To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 12:43 PM Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Parminder wrote: McTim So you agree with Lauren that urgent regulatory action is needed to ensure network neutrality,   Urgent, no, action, well if the FCC principles, are a form of "action", then yes.   and that efforts to confuse this issue should be resisted.   yes   Efforts at confusion like the arguments " that Internet content edge-caching (like that used by Akamai, Amazon, Google, and many other Web services) somehow violates net neutrality principles -- clearly a false assertion." (quoting the article you forwarded.) That to me is a great improvement on whatever I have ever heard you speak on network neutrality on this list :). (And i remember the precise 'confusing argument' of edge catching got discussed during NN discussions on this list.) So congrats to us, we are in a rare agreement.       This is entirely in line with what I have argued in the past.  I am abig fan of NN, always have been, I think we just used a different definition of NN.   However, what goes past me is that while i agree that when FCC is discussing NN, it is of no avail, and even reprehensible, for the implicated parties to point fingers at Google alleging another kind of anti-competitive practice, I cant see how Adam Raff's article can be criticized on this account. He mentions NN only in the passing in the opening para just to show that Google itself is not all smelling of roses. Also there is definitely a connection between NN practices and allegations about Google, both being anti-competitive activities.     What connection is that?   Rest of the article has to be dealt on its own merit, not only in terms of muddying waters in the NN debate. That is unfair. Adam clearly supports NN regulation, but he has a right to go ahead and make his case against Google. And it is not an ordinary article - it is a NYT op-ed, and so if Google has something to say or refute it must issue a rejoinder.      http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html       Just addressing one main points of Lauren's blog in defense of Google which seems so shallow. It is roughly the assertion, I have often earlier also heard, that with one click one can switch search engines.  A powerful actor telling weaker dependent groups that they always have the option to move away is a old trick, and mostly a cruel one. I wont expand on this but I think everyone can understand this.     I certainly don't.  I have moved away from lots of search engines/homepages/and other web services over the decades.   Secondly, I will move away only if I knew what logic/ algorithm Google used, and so I can decide if it works for me or not.   Either it works or it doesn't.  If PageRank doesn't give you what you need, then try Yahoo or Bing.  We, as IGC (or even CS asa whole) can't expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we?  While we are at it, why don't we insist that coca-cola publish their recipe for Coke or that KFC tell us exactly what their secret recipe is? \   So can we at least ask it to publish its logic of arranging search results so the consumers can make a choice. It is a wrong thing to ask?   yes     So what really is Lauren's blog trying to do by being so defensive about Google and what exactly you are agreeing  with is not clear to me.       I agree with the below paragraph. "Fundamentally, Google has simply provided better products, that more people want to use. And anyone else is free to do the same thing, at least as long as ISPs aren't permitted to strangle the Internet playing field via their total hold over Internet access to all sites!" (From Luaran's blog)     Happy New Year,   McTim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Sun Jan 3 14:38:13 2010 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 11:38:13 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRP] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Raff's article raises important big questions as do others in this conversation. On the micro/personal level, I am wondering if Google search may have become unwieldy. The hits I now get are diffuse and I have to be more and more careful to narrow search terms. For me, search is much less effective than, say, a year ago. Partly because the universe searched keeps getting larger, but also partly because sites are wrongly tagged, wrongly included. I find too many aggregated sites as hits and also some that have no hit term at all on their first page. On the other hand, Google alerts seem to be working better and better for me, finding citations in articles and books that I'm guessing are newly online. Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jan 3 17:26:38 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 17:26:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <00ff01ca8c40$9f09b6d0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <00ff01ca8c40$9f09b6d0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > > McTim,   > > Here’s my concern and the problem: How are the neighbors to know what's not there? > > > > If Google hand-wires the results to suite its needs, overriding its secret proprietary sauce, how are the atomized neighbors to know there are others opposed to the development? How are they to know to go to Bing? I suspect many would conclude, “Gee, no one else cares. Maybe I’m wrong?” And Google wins. Why would Google "hand-wire" their results in a case like that?  They make money showing ads next to search results.  If such an intervention became public, the resulting negative publicity would be not worth whatever gain they would get from NOT listing Google haters in search results. Try googling "google haters", there are millions of results. If you were in a struggle vs Google re: a local real estate deal, would you really use Google Search to find allies?? Whats missing in all this is this (easily found using Google "how does pagerank work" I might add): PR(A) = (1-d) + d(PR(t1)/C(t1) + ... + PR(tn)/C(tn)) While this may not be the current algorithm, it was the early version of it. In other words, with a few seconds effort, one can easily find out the information asked for in this thread. > > > > Of course education is the answer. And we've plans to develop curriculum that begins in the 3rd grade and to educates the public at all levels as to civic ills that might arise by putting too much trust in one search engine. But this is likely to take a decade or so to permeate society. key phrase there is "might arise". Its brand loyalty, that's all. I would hope that we as a group have far bigger fish to fry than this. > > > > (Before I move to my second point of disagreement let me slip in another example. Imagine we’re a few years down the road and Google “winner$” begin running for public office. How are we to trust its opaque search algorithm during the rough and tumble of an election campaign? same as during a non election year. If it is useful to you, use it. if not, then find something that is useful. >Then we’ll clearly see the relationship between link and ballot voting! I cant parse this. > And even if Google didn’t hand-wire, opponents would surely charge that it did, poisoning the system.) What you are doing is putting any search engine into a no win system. I, for one, appreciate what google has done around US election information. > > > > Second, when you say, > > > > "We, as IGC (or even CS as a whole) can't expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we?" > > > > I disagree. Given the importance of search in the development of civic attitudes - like the newspapers and TV of old - I think it’s vital that we address the issue. > > > > Here’s a path. Initially we make the importance of “search transparency” known to Google and encourage them to provide their secret sauce’s recipe. (I prefer “search transparency” to “search neutrality” as it is a somewhat easier to devise a metric.) > > I think they already know that people want to know how they know what they know. > > Google has capitalized their search lead and integrated it into a plethora of other services and should be able to keep their lead for the foreseeable future, and might be prescient to see the poisoning possibility and be agreeable to the need to move toward transparency.  Perhaps they might initially agree to a trusted outsider initially, a Moody’s-like entity to judge all search engines. And if Google doesn’t see the light, perhaps Bing might take a lead in offering transparent search. perhaps, but i wouldn't bet on it. > > > > And if the search industry doesn’t see the necessity – no one steps in - it’s incumbent on civil society to educate the public and decision makers about the impact of search opacity and encourage the development of a transparent search engine. > That has been tried, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikia_Search You are welcome to do it again if you feel the need. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Jan 3 21:53:16 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 21:53:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <00ff01ca8c40$9f09b6d0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF3A7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> McTim, everyone, 1st a nit: Google's patents are a matter of public record, like everyone's (when issued). Of course really people including Parminder and Thomas are more curious/concerned about Google's latest 'secret sauce' tweaked algorithms which are trade secrets and McTim is right they have no obligation nor motivation to share secrets. As has also been noted, the whole idea is not to be neutral but to bias search in one way or another ie, either for financial reasons of Google or for usability of their customers. Fine. They're a business, we would assume they are trying to make money from their customers. So forget search neutrality, ain't happening. Next, and main point: as Ralf pointed out, 'networks' exist at all levels of the stack and of human society (and amongst consenting devices). So 'net neutrality' is....amongst ISPs and their customers. But wait, not including mobile ISPs. Or them too? But not amongst IAPs (application providers) like Google right. So if you're operating in the cloud providing applications as a service across the Internet...what are you exactly from a neutral net point of view? Anyway, I don't mean to confuse folks, except to point out that if search neutrality is an oxymoron....well draw your own conclusions re net neutrality. IMHO. Lee ________________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 5:26 PM To: Thomas Lowenhaupt Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > > McTim, > > Here’s my concern and the problem: How are the neighbors to know what's not there? > > > > If Google hand-wires the results to suite its needs, overriding its secret proprietary sauce, how are the atomized neighbors to know there are others opposed to the development? How are they to know to go to Bing? I suspect many would conclude, “Gee, no one else cares. Maybe I’m wrong?” And Google wins. Why would Google "hand-wire" their results in a case like that? They make money showing ads next to search results. If such an intervention became public, the resulting negative publicity would be not worth whatever gain they would get from NOT listing Google haters in search results. Try googling "google haters", there are millions of results. If you were in a struggle vs Google re: a local real estate deal, would you really use Google Search to find allies?? Whats missing in all this is this (easily found using Google "how does pagerank work" I might add): PR(A) = (1-d) + d(PR(t1)/C(t1) + ... + PR(tn)/C(tn)) While this may not be the current algorithm, it was the early version of it. In other words, with a few seconds effort, one can easily find out the information asked for in this thread. > > > > Of course education is the answer. And we've plans to develop curriculum that begins in the 3rd grade and to educates the public at all levels as to civic ills that might arise by putting too much trust in one search engine. But this is likely to take a decade or so to permeate society. key phrase there is "might arise". Its brand loyalty, that's all. I would hope that we as a group have far bigger fish to fry than this. > > > > (Before I move to my second point of disagreement let me slip in another example. Imagine we’re a few years down the road and Google “winner$” begin running for public office. How are we to trust its opaque search algorithm during the rough and tumble of an election campaign? same as during a non election year. If it is useful to you, use it. if not, then find something that is useful. >Then we’ll clearly see the relationship between link and ballot voting! I cant parse this. > And even if Google didn’t hand-wire, opponents would surely charge that it did, poisoning the system.) What you are doing is putting any search engine into a no win system. I, for one, appreciate what google has done around US election information. > > > > Second, when you say, > > > > "We, as IGC (or even CS as a whole) can't expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we?" > > > > I disagree. Given the importance of search in the development of civic attitudes - like the newspapers and TV of old - I think it’s vital that we address the issue. > > > > Here’s a path. Initially we make the importance of “search transparency” known to Google and encourage them to provide their secret sauce’s recipe. (I prefer “search transparency” to “search neutrality” as it is a somewhat easier to devise a metric.) > > I think they already know that people want to know how they know what they know. > > Google has capitalized their search lead and integrated it into a plethora of other services and should be able to keep their lead for the foreseeable future, and might be prescient to see the poisoning possibility and be agreeable to the need to move toward transparency. Perhaps they might initially agree to a trusted outsider initially, a Moody’s-like entity to judge all search engines. And if Google doesn’t see the light, perhaps Bing might take a lead in offering transparent search. perhaps, but i wouldn't bet on it. > > > > And if the search industry doesn’t see the necessity – no one steps in - it’s incumbent on civil society to educate the public and decision makers about the impact of search opacity and encourage the development of a transparent search engine. > That has been tried, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikia_Search You are welcome to do it again if you feel the need. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Jan 3 22:19:24 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 22:19:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF3A7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <00ff01ca8c40$9f09b6d0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>,,<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF3A7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF3A8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> And to be a bit more blunt and to keep it real simple: Google is the largest Internet operator in the US now, and largest source of Internet traffic worldwide. Traditional 'telcos' like AT & T & Verizon are still in top 10, but just barely. But never mind the real world, we'll ignore Google's network and focus lots of effort developing net neutrality regs focused on....someone else. Brilliant. Lee Source: see Arbor Networks study Oct. 2009; or readwriteweb article excerpted below. Google Accounts for 6% of All Internet Traffic Written by Sarah Perez / October 13, 2009 6:38 AM / 8 Comments « Prior Post Next Post » Five years ago, Internet traffic was, for the most part, managed by tier 1 providers like AT&T, Verizon, Level 3 Communications and Global Crossing, all of which connected to thousands of tier 2 networks and regional providers. Today, that has changed. Now, instead of traffic being distributed among tens of thousands of networks, only 150 networks control some 50% of all online traffic. Among these new Internet superpowers, it's no surprise to find Google listed. In fact, the search giant accounts for the largest source (6%) of all Internet traffic worldwide. This data comes from a new report put out by Arbor Networks, who has just completed a two-year study of 256 exabytes of Internet traffic data, the largest study of global traffic since the start of the commercial Internet in the mid-1990's. "Hyper Giants" Rule Today's Internet The biggest trend to come out of Arbor Networks' report is clearly that of the Internet's consolidation. Today's Internet is "flatter" and "more densely connected" than ever before, reveals Arbor Networks' Chief Research Officer Danny McPherson. Not only is Google the largest traffic source, there are only 30 large companies in addition to Google and including sites like Facebook, Microsoft and YouTube which now account for a disproportionate 30% of all Internet traffic. According to Craig Labovitz, chief scientist at Arbor Networks, this shift represents the Internet's move into a second phase where it's no longer "all about contacting websites." Rather, "over the past two years larger organizations have been buying up the smaller websites and by July 2009, 30 per cent of the internet was owned by a few large sites." The acquisitions, the result of billions of dollars spent by large companies snapping up smaller ones, has created a new Internet core of "hyper giants," a coin termed by the report. The other companies making the list of Internet giants include names like Akamai, Limelight, BitGravity, Highwinds, and Gravity - hardly household names, and certainly not big telco providers. Instead, these content delivery networks (CDNs), are the new Internet backbone that help move large amounts of data across the web. ________________________________________ From: Lee W McKnight [lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 9:53 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim; Thomas Lowenhaupt Subject: RE: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality McTim, everyone, 1st a nit: Google's patents are a matter of public record, like everyone's (when issued). Of course really people including Parminder and Thomas are more curious/concerned about Google's latest 'secret sauce' tweaked algorithms which are trade secrets and McTim is right they have no obligation nor motivation to share secrets. As has also been noted, the whole idea is not to be neutral but to bias search in one way or another ie, either for financial reasons of Google or for usability of their customers. Fine. They're a business, we would assume they are trying to make money from their customers. So forget search neutrality, ain't happening. Next, and main point: as Ralf pointed out, 'networks' exist at all levels of the stack and of human society (and amongst consenting devices). So 'net neutrality' is....amongst ISPs and their customers. But wait, not including mobile ISPs. Or them too? But not amongst IAPs (application providers) like Google right. So if you're operating in the cloud providing applications as a service across the Internet...what are you exactly from a neutral net point of view? Anyway, I don't mean to confuse folks, except to point out that if search neutrality is an oxymoron....well draw your own conclusions re net neutrality. IMHO. Lee ________________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 5:26 PM To: Thomas Lowenhaupt Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > > McTim, > > Here’s my concern and the problem: How are the neighbors to know what's not there? > > > > If Google hand-wires the results to suite its needs, overriding its secret proprietary sauce, how are the atomized neighbors to know there are others opposed to the development? How are they to know to go to Bing? I suspect many would conclude, “Gee, no one else cares. Maybe I’m wrong?” And Google wins. Why would Google "hand-wire" their results in a case like that? They make money showing ads next to search results. If such an intervention became public, the resulting negative publicity would be not worth whatever gain they would get from NOT listing Google haters in search results. Try googling "google haters", there are millions of results. If you were in a struggle vs Google re: a local real estate deal, would you really use Google Search to find allies?? Whats missing in all this is this (easily found using Google "how does pagerank work" I might add): PR(A) = (1-d) + d(PR(t1)/C(t1) + ... + PR(tn)/C(tn)) While this may not be the current algorithm, it was the early version of it. In other words, with a few seconds effort, one can easily find out the information asked for in this thread. > > > > Of course education is the answer. And we've plans to develop curriculum that begins in the 3rd grade and to educates the public at all levels as to civic ills that might arise by putting too much trust in one search engine. But this is likely to take a decade or so to permeate society. key phrase there is "might arise". Its brand loyalty, that's all. I would hope that we as a group have far bigger fish to fry than this. > > > > (Before I move to my second point of disagreement let me slip in another example. Imagine we’re a few years down the road and Google “winner$” begin running for public office. How are we to trust its opaque search algorithm during the rough and tumble of an election campaign? same as during a non election year. If it is useful to you, use it. if not, then find something that is useful. >Then we’ll clearly see the relationship between link and ballot voting! I cant parse this. > And even if Google didn’t hand-wire, opponents would surely charge that it did, poisoning the system.) What you are doing is putting any search engine into a no win system. I, for one, appreciate what google has done around US election information. > > > > Second, when you say, > > > > "We, as IGC (or even CS as a whole) can't expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we?" > > > > I disagree. Given the importance of search in the development of civic attitudes - like the newspapers and TV of old - I think it’s vital that we address the issue. > > > > Here’s a path. Initially we make the importance of “search transparency” known to Google and encourage them to provide their secret sauce’s recipe. (I prefer “search transparency” to “search neutrality” as it is a somewhat easier to devise a metric.) > > I think they already know that people want to know how they know what they know. > > Google has capitalized their search lead and integrated it into a plethora of other services and should be able to keep their lead for the foreseeable future, and might be prescient to see the poisoning possibility and be agreeable to the need to move toward transparency. Perhaps they might initially agree to a trusted outsider initially, a Moody’s-like entity to judge all search engines. And if Google doesn’t see the light, perhaps Bing might take a lead in offering transparent search. perhaps, but i wouldn't bet on it. > > > > And if the search industry doesn’t see the necessity – no one steps in - it’s incumbent on civil society to educate the public and decision makers about the impact of search opacity and encourage the development of a transparent search engine. > That has been tried, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikia_Search You are welcome to do it again if you feel the need. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 4 01:35:39 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:05:39 +0530 Subject: [gaid-discuss] [governance] IGF and GAID In-Reply-To: <4B417D06.9050502@rwi.uzh.ch> References: <4B3C6C79.6020209@itforchange.net> <13638835.69716.1262263722087.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j09> <4B3EEC58.7090307@itforchange.net> <20100102204948.A22B59091E@npogroups.org> <001801ca8c47$ec3b8210$c4b28630$@lu> <004c01ca8c4e$e24dfce0$a6e9f6a0$@lu> <4B417D06.9050502@rwi.uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4B418C3B.5080301@itforchange.net> Yes, a number of developed countries are moving in the direction of a rights based approach to Internet connectivity. Pity is, they still push ICTD models for developing countries that resist any public goods framework for basic ICT enablements including, but not limited to, connectivity. Whether this anomaly is just a time-lag between different government departments dealing respectively with internal social policy and external development support, or is related to the fact that ICTs as the means of knowledge flows and controls underlie the principal new geo-political comparative advantage which is too precious to be compromised in charity-mindedness, is a moot question - but a very important one. Parminder Lehrstuhl Weber wrote: > Just for your information: Two years ago Switzerland already > introduced a law gauaranteeing every home fast broadband acces. > Happy New Year > Rolf H. Weber > > Latif LADID ("The New Internet based on IPv6") schrieb: >> >> >> UK - Ministers consider new law guaranteeing fast broadband for >> every home >> >> >> All householders would have a legal right to a high speed >> broadband connection under new plans being considered by the >> Government. >> >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/broadband/6920942/Ministers-consider-new-law-guaranteeing-fast-broadband-for-every-home.html >> >> >> Published: 8:00AM GMT 02 Jan 2010 >> >> >> >> *The Government is considering making broadband access a legal right.* >> >> The proposals would place high-speed internet access on a par with >> utilities like water and gas, which are already covered by >> legislation guaranteeing their supply to every home in the country. >> >> The legal broadband obligation has been proposed by council leaders >> in response to concerns that rural communities are being left behind >> by the digital revolution, with residents and businesses in much of >> the countryside forced to endure sluggish internet connections. >> >> >> >> Local authorities say that the Goverment's existing "commitment" to >> provide 2 Mbps broadband access to all homes by 2012 is insufficent, >> and are calling for faster minimum speeds to be enshrined in law. >> >> While many city dwellers will soon enjoy super-fast 40 Mbps >> connections, _around 42 per cent of rural households are still unable >> to access the internet at 2 Mbps_, because of the distance between >> homes and telephone exchanges. >> >> Keith Mitchell of the Local Government Association (LGA), which has >> forwarded the proposals to ministers, said that fast internet was now >> "essential to everyday life" and should be viewed as a necessity >> rather than a luxury. >> >> He said: "From doing business, to banking online, accessing >> information or just downloading music, high speed broadband would >> change the lives of people and boost businesses in rural areas across >> the country." >> >> If the proposals are accepted by John Denham, the secretary of state >> for communities and local government, and ministers at the Department >> of Innovation and Business, Britain would become one of the first >> countries in the world to oblige internet service providers to >> deliver fast broadband. Finland passed a law guaranteeing 1Mps >> connections in October last year. >> >> The plans were shortlisted by the LGA for consideration by ministers >> after being selected from more than 300 ideas to improve local life >> drawn up by councils across the country. >> >> Christopher Snowling, cabinet member for health and community at Mid >> Sussex District Council which originally proposed the new law, said >> that guaranteed broadband speeds would help close the digital divide >> between rural and urban areas. >> >> "People living in rural areas deserve the same quality of internet >> connection as those living in major towns and cities. _Better >> broadband internet would encourage commuters to work from home which >> would cut traffic and CO2 emissions," he said._ >> >> "Faster internet speeds will allow rural businesses to compete on a >> more level playing field with businesses in urban areas and make sure >> school children in rural areas are not disadvantaged by not being >> able to access information online." >> >> The Telegraph has launched a campaign for a better deal for broadband >> users in rural areas to ensure they do not miss out on vital services >> and business opportunities. >> >> But the Government has been reluctant to make firm commitments to >> minimum broadband speeds because of the costs of improving networks >> in rural areas. The cost of installing the fibre optic lines required >> for super-fast broadband to all homes has been estimated at up to £30 >> billion. >> >> But last June Gordon Brown conceded that more must be done to help >> rural businesses cut off from the benefits of the web, acknowledging >> that "a fast internet connection is now seen by most of the public as >> an essential service, as indispensable as electricity, gas and water". >> >> A Government spokesman said: "The Government remains absolutely >> committed to improving the lives of people in both urban and rural >> communities. We will carefully consider the full shortlist of >> proposals when it is received from the LGA. >> >> _"We don't want rural Britain to miss out on the social and economic >> benefits of quality broadband_, which is why the Universal Service >> Commitment of 2Mbps set out in the Digital Britain White Paper aims >> to provide good quality broadband to all parts of the UK. >> >> "We believe this commitment achieves the best possible balance >> between faster services and affordability. Our plans foresee a fast >> roll-out of 2Mbps by 2012, after which our efforts and resources will >> focus on enabling Next Generation Access to most of the UK by 2017, >> providing much higher speeds of 40Mbps or more." >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* discuss-bounces at mx.un-gaid.org >> [mailto:discuss-bounces at mx.un-gaid.org] *On Behalf Of *Latif LADID >> ("The New Internet based on IPv6") >> *Sent:* 03 January 2010 08:40 >> *To:* 'Ronda Hauben'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'GAID Discussion' >> *Cc:* 'Parminder'; email at hakik.org >> *Subject:* Re: [gaid-discuss] [governance] IGF and GAID >> >> >> >> Internet has become a utility like water and electricity. If some >> commercial freaks decide on who gets water and electricity then their >> government should be fired for obvious corruption or plain incompetence. >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> Latif >> >> >> >> *From:* discuss-bounces at mx.un-gaid.org >> [mailto:discuss-bounces at mx.un-gaid.org] *On Behalf Of *Ronda Hauben >> *Sent:* 02 January 2010 22:23 >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; GAID Discussion >> *Cc:* Parminder; email at hakik.org >> *Subject:* Re: [gaid-discuss] [governance] IGF and GAID >> >> >> >> Does anyone know what are the actual plans for the future of GAID? >> >> >> It is good to see there is some discussion of it on these lists, but >> I am wondering what is the actual plan for it, if there is one being >> planned or in the process of being implemented? >> >> I have proposed that those interested in integrating Internet >> development in the development process have much to learn from >> studying and discussing the actual development process that built the >> Internet. >> >> When I returned home from the WSIS meeting in Tunis in 2005, I had >> some discussion with someone who described the struggle in his >> country in Africa, over how to spread the Internet. >> >> The experience he described was about how commercial entities wanted >> to limit how the Internet was used. Meanwhile there some in >> government who recognized that there was a need to spread the >> Internet at a low cost, especially in the education sector. He >> described the government idea of wiring a government building and >> then using that to offer low cost or free Internet education to the >> school systems nearby. Instead those interested in commercial >> development claimed the wiring of the government building should only >> serve the government site. The struggle between these two visions of >> Internet development was not unique to that country, as I had >> experienced a similar struggle in the US. >> >> It seemed reviewing both the vision guiding early networking >> development and the history of how the Internet was developed and >> spread in its early phases, would be of value in general, and in >> particular to the developing world. >> >> Unfortunately, those drafting the millennium development goals didn't >> find a way to build in this kind of focus into the goals themselves. >> >> >> >> Happy New Year to all. >> >> >> >> with best wishes >> >> >> >> Ronda >> >> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Hakikur Rahman > > wrote: >> >> Dear Parminder, >> >> I agree with you cent percent, but wish I could have knew those >> strange reasons that you have mentioned. Not only UNDP, but seems >> majority of development partners are no more interested in ICTD. For >> many years, it has become stalled somewhere, when the field was >> really going to launch in many lagging nations. Hope GAID, as it has >> been expected could come up with something in this aspect. >> >> Best regards, >> Hakikur >> >> At 06:48 02-01-2010, Parminder wrote: >> >> Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >> >> Dear Parminder >> >> As usually your message clearifies the debate ; therefore all my >> thanks. >> >> > concrete suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when >> the resolution/ >> > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general >> > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how >> the >> > process will go forward). >> >> Isn't there another confusing situation with GAID as far as IG is >> dealing with Developing Countriers issues are concerned ? >> If this is the opinion of a majority among us, our relation with >> -and/or position on- GAID should be laid down accordingly. >> >> Dear Jean-Louis, >> >> Development has never been a serious political issue at WSIS, and >> has been even less so post-WSIS. It is for this reason that the >> levels of interest of major actors and therefore the trajectories >> of the IGF and GAID have been very different. (It is a different >> manner that the subject of development is treated as a red >> herring with such regularity, and often deviousness, in the IGF >> that it would make a very interesting study/ story.) >> >> IG is very political because it concerns the governance, and thus >> the possibilities of shaping, of the Internet. Development in >> post-WSIS structures has been seen in largely in the normal >> 'charity view' of development, plus as new possibilities of >> political alliances for transnational businesses to expand their >> markets in developing countries. The fact is that, at present, no >> major actor of any significant power has really much interest in >> ICTD at the global level. (UNDP for some strange reasons has >> mostly withdrawn from this area.) >> >> So while IGF seems to be headed towards even keener political >> contests, GAID, post-Sarbuland, may be headed towards getting >> folded up into a regular UN department, doing mundane work (thats >> what I fear). The way GAID was run as a new age network had many >> huge problems - and we kept pointed them out at all GAID meetings >> - but it will be a mistake to forgo its open new-age network >> structure for a bureaucratic UN department. What we need instead >> is a set of more focussed and clearer objectives and work plans, >> and a better network structure focussed on public interest >> actors, chiefly those involved with development issues. >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet >> >> http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> ______________________________________________________ >> Mailing list for GAID members >> Replies go to the sender by default. To respond to the >> list, please address to discuss at un-gaid.org >> http://mx.un-gaid.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> http://www.un-gaid.org >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ______________________________________________________ > Mailing list for GAID members > Replies go to the sender by default. To respond to the > list, please address to discuss at un-gaid.org > http://mx.un-gaid.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > http://www.un-gaid.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 4 03:33:20 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 14:03:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B41A7D0.5070807@itforchange.net> >>Secondly, I will move away only if I knew what logic/ algorithm Google used, and so I can decide if it works for me or not. >Either it works or it doesn't. If PageRank doesn't give you what you need, then try Yahoo or Bing. We, as IGC (or >even CS asa whole) can't expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we? While we are at it, >why don't we insist that coca-cola publish their recipe for Coke or that KFC tell us exactly what their secret recipe >is? McTim Treating everything, in this case a company's (self-declared) aim of organizing the world's information, as akin to buying coke or KFC chicken is behind many problems of the modern world. And since you have, in the past, declared your innocence regarding this socio-political term, I may say that this is more or less what neoliberalism means. You may however know that all drug manufacturers, for instance, are obliged to disclose all ingredients of the drugs, whether it effects their competitiveness or not. This is because someone sensible decided that drugs are not the same as KFC chicken. Media companies are obliged to clearly demarcate editorial content from advertisement, once again some policy makers were a bit nuanced, with public interest in mind. And you spoke about patents, as Lee points out, all patents are to be publicly available information. In fact patents were initially devised so that innovative ideas could be widely shared. But coming back to the main point about Raff's article. >>And it is not an ordinary article - it is a NYT op-ed, and so if Google has something to say or refute it must issue a rejoinder. > http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html The link you forward does not address the principle point made by Raff's article. Relevant parts are posted again for your reference. "Another way that Google exploits its control is through preferential placement. With the introduction in 2007 of what it calls "universal search," Google began promoting its own services at or near the top of its search results, bypassing the algorithms it uses to rank the services of others. Google now favors its own price-comparison results for product queries, its own map results for geographic queries, its own news results for topical queries, and its own YouTube results for video queries. And Google's stated plans for universal search make it clear that this is only the beginning." "Because of its domination of the global search market and ability to penalize competitors while placing its own services at the top of its search results, Google has a virtually unassailable competitive advantage. And Google can deploy this advantage well beyond the confines of search to any service it chooses. Wherever it does so, incumbents are toppled, new entrants are suppressed and innovation is imperiled." Above is a clear allegation that without telling us "Google ... (is) promoting its own services at or near the top of its search results, bypassing the algorithms it uses to rank the services of others". I do not know whether they actually do so or not. But if they do not do so, by my reckoning, they will jump in with a strong rejoinder within hours of such an allegation being carried in a NY op-ed article. So, lets assume that they do so. Can anything be more anti-competitive than this. >>Also there is definitely a connection between NN practices and allegations about Google, both being anti-competitive activities. >What connection is that? Cant see how you cannot make the connection. One of the worst NN violation consists in telco's promoting their own services on their network over that of their competitors. Google is doing the same at another level of the network that it controls. Isnt it the same level of offense? Parminder McTim wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Parminder > wrote: > > McTim > > So you agree with Lauren that urgent regulatory action is needed > to ensure network neutrality, > > > Urgent, no, action, well if the FCC principles, are a form of > "action", then yes. > > > and that efforts to confuse this issue should be resisted. > > > yes > > > Efforts at confusion like the arguments " that Internet content > edge-caching (like that used by Akamai, Amazon, Google, and many > other Web services) somehow violates net neutrality principles -- > clearly a false assertion." (quoting the article you forwarded.) > > That to me is a great improvement on whatever I have ever heard > you speak on network neutrality on this list :). (And i remember > the precise 'confusing argument' of edge catching got discussed > during NN discussions on this list.) So congrats to us, we are in > a rare agreement. > > > > > This is entirely in line with what I have argued in the past. I am > abig fan of NN, always have been, I think we just used a different > definition of NN. > > > > However, what goes past me is that while i agree that when FCC is > discussing NN, it is of no avail, and even reprehensible, for the > implicated parties to point fingers at Google alleging another > kind of anti-competitive practice, I cant see how Adam Raff's > article can be criticized on this account. He mentions NN only in > the passing in the opening para just to show that Google itself is > not all smelling of roses. Also there is definitely a connection > between NN practices and allegations about Google, both being > anti-competitive activities. > > > > What connection is that? > > > Rest of the article has to be dealt on its own merit, not only in > terms of muddying waters in the NN debate. That is unfair. Adam > clearly supports NN regulation, but he has a right to go ahead and > make his case against Google. And it is not an ordinary article - > it is a NYT op-ed, and so if Google has something to say or refute > it must issue a rejoinder. > > > > http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html > > > > > Just addressing one main points of Lauren's blog in defense of > Google which seems so shallow. It is roughly the assertion, I have > often earlier also heard, that with one click one can switch > search engines. A powerful actor telling weaker dependent groups > that they always have the option to move away is a old trick, and > mostly a cruel one. I wont expand on this but I think everyone can > understand this. > > > > I certainly don't. I have moved away from lots of search > engines/homepages/and other web services over the decades. > > > Secondly, I will move away only if I knew what logic/ algorithm > Google used, and so I can decide if it works for me or not. > > > Either it works or it doesn't. If PageRank doesn't give you what you > need, then try Yahoo or Bing. We, as IGC (or even CS asa whole) can't > expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we? > While we are at it, why don't we insist that coca-cola publish their > recipe for Coke or that KFC tell us exactly what their secret recipe is? > \ > > > So can we at least ask it to publish its logic of arranging search > results so the consumers can make a choice. It is a wrong thing to > ask? > > > yes > > > > So what really is Lauren's blog trying to do by being so defensive > about Google and what exactly you are agreeing with is not clear > to me. > > > > > I agree with the below paragraph. > > > "Fundamentally, Google has simply provided better products, that > more people want to use. And anyone else is free to do the same > thing, at least as long as ISPs aren't permitted to strangle the > Internet playing field via their total hold over Internet access > to all sites!" (From Luaran's blog) > > > > Happy New Year, > > McTim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jan 4 11:02:54 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 16:02:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF3A7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <00ff01ca8c40$9f09b6d0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF3A7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF3A7 at suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, at 21:53:16 on Sun, 3 Jan 2010, Lee W McKnight writes >Anyway, I don't mean to confuse folks, except to point out that if >search neutrality is an oxymoron....well draw your own conclusions >re net neutrality. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that both concepts include the word "neutrality". I say "both concepts", but as neither is well enough defined in common consciousness to be able to discuss, unless first asking what one's debating partner thinks it means, there's perhaps a second similarity :) -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Jan 4 19:00:35 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 11:00:35 +1100 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF3A8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: One thing to realise in this debate is that there is an inherent potential conflict of interest involved when a search provider is also an advertising and content provider. Particularly as internet names become more irrelevant and search continues to expand as the major discovery mechanism. And when the worlds biggest search provider is also the biggest content owner and biggest advertising revenue source on line, there is a recipe for problems and potential monopolistic behaviour. And here's another bit for the puzzle! I have just been the victim of an internet fraud - I realised in time (I hope!) that I was the subject of a scam, but to escape it I had to cancel a credit card. Where Google comes in here is that the search result that led me to the fraudulent site was a number one hit on Google (I was looking for a particular piece of Mac software and was drawn to a file sharing site that wanted a small fee - but as I found out later has the habit of using credit card numbers obtained from many similar sites for all sorts of other charges). Quite sophisticated sites. I cant blame a search algorithm for directing me to a site which happens to be fraudulent. But I am not going to argue for entirely neutral algorithms either - in time and as we become more mature as regards cybercrime, search algorithms should be rejecting fraudulent sites where possible (yes this is difficult I know). So we probably don't want neutral search entirely. The Halal search engine discussion here a few months ago raised similar issues. But what I do want is clear disclosure and some clear overall policies regarding search behaviour. This is a critical issue, and especially for governance. It isnt going away and there is no logical home for addressing these issues holistically at present. Ian Peter > From: Lee W McKnight > Reply-To: , Lee W McKnight > Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 22:19:24 -0500 > To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , Lee W McKnight > , McTim , Thomas Lowenhaupt > > Subject: RE: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality > > And to be a bit more blunt and to keep it real simple: Google is the largest > Internet operator in the US now, and largest source of Internet traffic > worldwide. > > Traditional 'telcos' like AT & T & Verizon are still in top 10, but just > barely. > > But never mind the real world, we'll ignore Google's network and focus lots of > effort developing net neutrality regs focused on....someone else. Brilliant. > > Lee > > Source: see Arbor Networks study Oct. 2009; or readwriteweb article excerpted > below. > > Google Accounts for 6% of All Internet Traffic > Written by Sarah Perez / October 13, 2009 6:38 AM / 8 Comments > « Prior Post Next Post » > > Five years ago, Internet traffic was, for the most part, managed by tier 1 > providers like AT&T, Verizon, Level 3 Communications and Global Crossing, all > of which connected to thousands of tier 2 networks and regional providers. > Today, that has changed. Now, instead of traffic being distributed among tens > of thousands of networks, only 150 networks control some 50% of all online > traffic. Among these new Internet superpowers, it's no surprise to find Google > listed. In fact, the search giant accounts for the largest source (6%) of all > Internet traffic worldwide. > > This data comes from a new report put out by Arbor Networks, who has just > completed a two-year study of 256 exabytes of Internet traffic data, the > largest study of global traffic since the start of the commercial Internet in > the mid-1990's. > "Hyper Giants" Rule Today's Internet > > The biggest trend to come out of Arbor Networks' report is clearly that of the > Internet's consolidation. Today's Internet is "flatter" and "more densely > connected" than ever before, reveals Arbor Networks' Chief Research Officer > Danny McPherson. Not only is Google the largest traffic source, there are only > 30 large companies in addition to Google and including sites like Facebook, > Microsoft and YouTube which now account for a disproportionate 30% of all > Internet traffic. > > According to Craig Labovitz, chief scientist at Arbor Networks, this shift > represents the Internet's move into a second phase where it's no longer "all > about contacting websites." Rather, "over the past two years larger > organizations have been buying up the smaller websites and by July 2009, 30 > per cent of the internet was owned by a few large sites." The acquisitions, > the result of billions of dollars spent by large companies snapping up smaller > ones, has created a new Internet core of "hyper giants," a coin termed by the > report. > > The other companies making the list of Internet giants include names like > Akamai, Limelight, BitGravity, Highwinds, and Gravity - hardly household > names, and certainly not big telco providers. Instead, these content delivery > networks (CDNs), are the new Internet backbone that help move large amounts of > data across the web. > > > ________________________________________ > From: Lee W McKnight [lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 9:53 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim; Thomas Lowenhaupt > Subject: RE: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality > > McTim, everyone, > > 1st a nit: Google's patents are a matter of public record, like everyone's > (when issued). > > Of course really people including Parminder and Thomas are more > curious/concerned about Google's latest 'secret sauce' tweaked algorithms > which are trade secrets and McTim is right they have no obligation nor > motivation to share secrets. As has also been noted, the whole idea is not to > be neutral but to bias search in one way or another ie, either for financial > reasons of Google or for usability of their customers. Fine. They're a > business, we would assume they are trying to make money from their customers. > So forget search neutrality, ain't happening. > > Next, and main point: as Ralf pointed out, 'networks' exist at all levels of > the stack and of human society (and amongst consenting devices). > > So 'net neutrality' is....amongst ISPs and their customers. But wait, not > including mobile ISPs. Or them too? But not amongst IAPs (application > providers) like Google right. So if you're operating in the cloud providing > applications as a service across the Internet...what are you exactly from a > neutral net point of view? > > Anyway, I don't mean to confuse folks, except to point out that if search > neutrality is an oxymoron....well draw your own conclusions re net neutrality. > IMHO. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 5:26 PM > To: Thomas Lowenhaupt > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality > > On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt > wrote: >> >> McTim, > > > >> >> Here¹s my concern and the problem: How are the neighbors to know what's not >> there? >> >> >> >> If Google hand-wires the results to suite its needs, overriding its secret >> proprietary sauce, how are the atomized neighbors to know there are others >> opposed to the development? How are they to know to go to Bing? I suspect >> many would conclude, ³Gee, no one else cares. Maybe I¹m wrong?² And Google >> wins. > > Why would Google "hand-wire" their results in a case like that? They > make money showing ads next to search results. If such an > intervention became public, the resulting negative publicity would be > not worth whatever gain they would get from NOT listing Google haters > in search results. > > Try googling "google haters", there are millions of results. > > If you were in a struggle vs Google re: a local real estate deal, > would you really use Google Search to find allies?? > > Whats missing in all this is this (easily found using Google "how does > pagerank work" I might add): > > PR(A) = (1-d) + d(PR(t1)/C(t1) + ... + PR(tn)/C(tn)) > > While this may not be the current algorithm, it was the early version > of it. In other words, with a few seconds effort, one can easily find > out the information asked for in this thread. > >> >> >> >> Of course education is the answer. And we've plans to develop curriculum that >> begins in the 3rd grade and to educates the public at all levels as to civic >> ills that might arise by putting too much trust in one search engine. But >> this is likely to take a decade or so to permeate society. > > > key phrase there is "might arise". Its brand loyalty, that's all. I > would hope that we as a group have far bigger fish to fry than this. > > >> >> >> >> (Before I move to my second point of disagreement let me slip in another >> example. Imagine we¹re a few years down the road and Google ³winner$² begin >> running for public office. How are we to trust its opaque search algorithm >> during the rough and tumble of an election campaign? > > same as during a non election year. If it is useful to you, use it. > if not, then find something that is useful. > >> Then we¹ll clearly see the relationship between link and ballot voting! > > I cant parse this. > >> And even if Google didn¹t hand-wire, opponents would surely charge that it >> did, poisoning the system.) > > > What you are doing is putting any search engine into a no win system. > > I, for one, appreciate what google has done around US election information. > >> >> >> >> Second, when you say, >> >> >> >> "We, as IGC (or even CS as a whole) can't expect to seriously ask Google to >> show us their patented IP, can we?" >> >> >> >> I disagree. Given the importance of search in the development of civic >> attitudes - like the newspapers and TV of old - I think it¹s vital that we >> address the issue. >> >> >> >> Here¹s a path. Initially we make the importance of ³search transparency² >> known to Google and encourage them to provide their secret sauce¹s recipe. (I >> prefer ³search transparency² to ³search neutrality² as it is a somewhat >> easier to devise a metric.) >> >> > > I think they already know that people want to know how they know what they > know. > > >> >> Google has capitalized their search lead and integrated it into a plethora of >> other services and should be able to keep their lead for the foreseeable >> future, and might be prescient to see the poisoning possibility and be >> agreeable to the need to move toward transparency. Perhaps they might >> initially agree to a trusted outsider initially, a Moody¹s-like entity to >> judge all search engines. And if Google doesn¹t see the light, perhaps Bing >> might take a lead in offering transparent search. > > > perhaps, but i wouldn't bet on it. >> >> >> >> And if the search industry doesn¹t see the necessity ­ no one steps in - it¹s >> incumbent on civil society to educate the public and decision makers about >> the impact of search opacity and encourage the development of a transparent >> search engine. >> > > That has been tried, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikia_Search > > You are welcome to do it again if you feel the need. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at orange.fr Tue Jan 5 08:31:51 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 14:31:51 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality Message-ID: <24554587.33746.1262698311499.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d40> Dear Ian and all The article below (from IBLS News Portal) may be interesting for some of you Best Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 05/01/10 01:01 > De : "Ian Peter" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality > > > > One thing to realise in this debate is that there is an inherent potential > conflict of interest involved when a search provider is also an advertising > and content provider. Particularly as internet names become more irrelevant > and search continues to expand as the major discovery mechanism. > > And when the worlds biggest search provider is also the biggest content > owner and biggest advertising revenue source on line, there is a recipe for > problems and potential monopolistic behaviour. > > And here's another bit for the puzzle! I have just been the victim of an > internet fraud - I realised in time (I hope!) that I was the subject of a > scam, but to escape it I had to cancel a credit card. > > Where Google comes in here is that the search result that led me to the > fraudulent site was a number one hit on Google (I was looking for a > particular piece of Mac software and was drawn to a file sharing site that > wanted a small fee - but as I found out later has the habit of using credit > card numbers obtained from many similar sites for all sorts of other > charges). Quite sophisticated sites. > > I cant blame a search algorithm for directing me to a site which happens to > be fraudulent. But I am not going to argue for entirely neutral algorithms > either - in time and as we become more mature as regards cybercrime, search > algorithms should be rejecting fraudulent sites where possible (yes this is > difficult I know). > > So we probably don't want neutral search entirely. The Halal search engine > discussion here a few months ago raised similar issues. But what I do want > is clear disclosure and some clear overall policies regarding search > behaviour. > > This is a critical issue, and especially for governance. It isnt going away > and there is no logical home for addressing these issues holistically at > present. > > Ian Peter INTERNET LAW - The Initial Interest Confusion Theory: The Beginning Of Liability For Search Engine Companies Martha L. Arias, Martha L. Arias Search engine and internet advertisers have found technological systems to provide ‘better location’ and visibility for their patrons’ advertisements (ads). One of these inventions is Meta tags. In simple terms, Meta tags are HTML (Hypertext Markup Language) codes incorporated to an advertisement or webpage that depict that website content and will increase visibility for those searching the web. There are two types of Meta tags, ‘description’ and ‘keyword’ Meta tags. The main objective in using description Meta tags is to describe the website content. At least at its inception, keyword Meta tags intended to use common words or sentences found in a specific website to trigger visibility of the Ads. No doubt Meta tags are an excellent tool for search engine patrons and for Internet surfers. It is an excellent marketing strategy for search engine patrons and time-efficiency instrument for Internet users. Yet, search engine companies turned intense in helping their patrons. They embarked on the sensitive journey of using trademarked terms in Meta tags. But, is this use legal? May search engines be liable for the use of trademarked terms in keyword Meta tags? May this violate the trademark laws and unfair competition rules? The answer to these and other related questions follow. One of the leading United States (U.S.) cases on the issue of liability for the use of trademarked terms is Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment (Brookfield). This case commenced in a District Court of California in 1998 and concluded with a remarkable decision that marked the beginning of a new liability era for those using trademarked words in their advertisements. Brookfield held that the defendant company was liable to the plaintiff company, under the Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Laws of the U.S. Lanham Act (15 U.S. §§1114 and 1125(a), for the defendant’s use of plaintiff’s trademarked term in defendant’s Meta tags in Defendant’s websites, even if no actual damage existed. This case introduced the Initial Interest Confusion liability theory that is still applicable in the U.S. Courts. Brookfield was later complemented by Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications (Playboy). In Playboy liability was directed asserted on a search engine company sued for infringement of the same provisions of the U.S. Lanham Act. What are the facts of Brookfield case? Brookfield Communications, Inc. is a company that collects and distributes information about the entertainment industry. In its initial stages, Brookfield created and offered software for major Hollywood film studios only. Later in 1993, they broadened their services and introduced a software database with news and information about the entertainment industry intended for a general or less specialized audience. This database was called “MovieBuff.” West Coast Entertainment is a large video rental store with more than 500 stores nation- wide. In 1991, West Coast Entertainment got a Federal registration of the service mark “Movie Buff’s Movie Store.” Records show that this service mark was related to the sell and rental of video cassettes and video game cartridges. In February 1996, West Coast Entertainment registered a domain name called “moviebuff.com.” In August 1996, Brookfield tried to register a domain name called MovieBuff.com to no avail because this domain name had been registered by West Coast Entertainment Company. In August 1997, Brookfield applied for the Federal registration of the mark “movieBuff” that would identify Brookfield’s products and services. Brookfield trademark application described its products as “computer software providing data and information in the field of the motion picture and television industries.” This Federal trademark was issued in September 1998. Likewise, Brookfield had obtained a California state trademark registration of the mark “movieBuff” in 1994 that covered “computer software.” In October 1998, Brookfield knew that West Coast Entertainment Company would launch an entertainment industry database in their already registered website, “movieBuff.com” with similar information to that offered by Brookfield’s through its “MovieBuff” software and displayed in their website “Brookfieldcomm.com and “moviebuffonline.com.” Brookfield then requested West Coast Entertainment Company to desist this endeavor because it would violate Brookfield’s trademark rights. West Coast Entertainment Company paid no attention to this request and launched its entertainment database in its “movieBuff.com website. Then, this lawsuit commenced. What was the legal issue in this case? There were several legal issues in this case, some of them procedural issues that will not be addressed in this summary. First, the Court considered whether there was an infringement of trademark claim under section 32 of the Lanham Act (U.S. Trademark law); Second, whether there was an unfair competition claim under section 43 of the same Act. These two issues were solved after worthy and lengthy intellectual property considerations that will be reviewed in other summary, especially that related to the use of trademarked terms in domain names. Third, and most important for us in this discussion, the Court considered whether West Coast Entertainment Company (defendant) was liable for the use of the trademarked term “movieBuff” in the Meta tags in its website “westcoastvideo.com” or any other website different than “movieBuff.com.” The Court decision was in the affirmative. The Court held that due to the Initial Interest Confusion theory, West Coast Entertainment Company was liable to Brookfield for the use of its trademarked term in the Meta tags of defendant’s websites other than “movieBueff.com.” What is the Initial Interest Confusion Theory and is it Actionable under the U.S. Lanham Act? Using the facts of this case, the Court appropriately defined this theory as follows: “Web surfers looking for ‘Brookfield’s’ ‘MovieBuff’ products who are taken by a search engine to ‘westcoastvideo.com’ will find a database similar enough to ‘MovieBuff’ such that a sizeable number of consumers who were originally looking for Brookfield’s products will simply decide to utilize West Coast’s offering instead. Although there is no source confusion in the sense that consumers know they are patronizing West Coast rather than Brookfield, there is nevertheless initial interest confusion in the sense that, by using ‘moviebuff.com’ or ‘moviebuff’ to divert people looking for ‘MovieBuff’ to its web site, West Coast improperly benefits from the goodwill that Brookfield developed in its mark.” The wisdom of this theory may be simply explained as follows; a consumer looking for a specific product uses a search engine and types the name of that product. Suddenly, that consumer is taken to the website of a company that may not be the owner of this product’s trademarked term but that sells similar products. Even though, this consumer may be clearly aware that he is using a different website than the initial website he intended, he may decide to stay in this website since it offers a similar product of the one he was looking for. It is clear that the website using a trademarked in its Meta tag is benefiting from the goodwill of this trademarked term to attract consumers to its site. But, where is the confusion and violation of the Lanham Act? The Court stressed that a consumer re-directed to a website different than the one initially intended may not be confused as to what website he is visiting. Yet, the fact that his initial interest for a company or website was diverted to another is a type of confusion against which the Lanham Act protects. This Court citing to Mobile Oil Corp. v. Pegasus Petroleum Corp. said: “to capture initial consumer attention, even though no actual sale is finally completed as a result of the confusion, may be still an infringement.” Thus, one of the principal elements of infringement under the Lanham Act, be it confusion, is found when a company uses a trademarked term in its Meta tags. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Jan 5 09:17:00 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 10:17:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <24554587.33746.1262698311499.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d40> References: <24554587.33746.1262698311499.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d40> Message-ID: The thing that concerns me most about this debate is the perception, apparently generally accepted, that the user is a) unable to protect him/her self and b) stupid. I remember being greeted with surprise and horror when I suggested "playing games with google" - deliberately inserting words into emails to see what the response would be. We can all say no, and if we are "disempowered" to the point where this is no longer possible then the answer surely lies in educating people, rather than regulating google. Deirdre 2010/1/5 Jean-Louis FULLSACK > > > Dear Ian and all > > The article below (from IBLS News Portal) may be interesting for some of > you > > Best > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > Message du 05/01/10 01:01 > > De : "Ian Peter" > > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Copie à : > > Objet : Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality > > > > > > > > > One thing to realise in this debate is that there is an inherent > potential > > conflict of interest involved when a search provider is also an > advertising > > and content provider. Particularly as internet names become more > irrelevant > > and search continues to expand as the major discovery mechanism. > > > > And when the worlds biggest search provider is also the biggest content > > owner and biggest advertising revenue source on line, there is a recipe > for > > problems and potential monopolistic behaviour. > > > > And here's another bit for the puzzle! I have just been the victim of an > > internet fraud - I realised in time (I hope!) that I was the subject of a > > scam, but to escape it I had to cancel a credit card. > > > > Where Google comes in here is that the search result that led me to the > > fraudulent site was a number one hit on Google (I was looking for a > > particular piece of Mac software and was drawn to a file sharing site > that > > wanted a small fee - but as I found out later has the habit of using > credit > > card numbers obtained from many similar sites for all sorts of other > > charges). Quite sophisticated sites. > > > > I cant blame a search algorithm for directing me to a site which happens > to > > be fraudulent. But I am not going to argue for entirely neutral > algorithms > > either - in time and as we become more mature as regards cybercrime, > search > > algorithms should be rejecting fraudulent sites where possible (yes this > is > > difficult I know). > > > > So we probably don't want neutral search entirely. The Halal search > engine > > discussion here a few months ago raised similar issues. But what I do > want > > is clear disclosure and some clear overall policies regarding search > > behaviour. > > > > This is a critical issue, and especially for governance. It isnt going > away > > and there is no logical home for addressing these issues holistically at > > present. > > > > Ian Peter > > *INTERNET LAW - The Initial Interest Confusion Theory: The Beginning Of > Liability For Search Engine Companies * > > *Martha L. Arias, Martha L. Arias* > > > > > Search engine and internet advertisers have found technological systems to > provide ‘better location’ and visibility for their patrons’ advertisements > (ads). One of these inventions is Meta tags. In simple terms, Meta tags are > HTML (Hypertext Markup Language) codes incorporated to an advertisement or > webpage that depict that website content and will increase visibility for > those searching the web. There are two types of Meta tags, ‘description’ and > ‘keyword’ Meta tags. The main objective in using description Meta tags is to > describe the website content. At least at its inception, keyword Meta tags > intended to use common words or sentences found in a specific website to > trigger visibility of the Ads. No doubt Meta tags are an excellent tool for > search engine patrons and for Internet surfers. It is an excellent marketing > strategy for search engine patrons and time-efficiency instrument for > Internet users. > > Yet, search engine companies turned intense in helping their patrons. They > embarked on the sensitive journey of using trademarked terms in Meta tags. > But, is this use legal? May search engines be liable for the use of > trademarked terms in keyword Meta tags? May this violate the trademark laws > and unfair competition rules? The answer to these and other related > questions follow. > > One of the leading United States (U.S.) cases on the issue of liability for > the use of trademarked terms is Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West > Coast Entertainment (Brookfield). This case commenced in a District Court of > California in 1998 and concluded with a remarkable decision that marked the > beginning of a new liability era for those using trademarked words in their > advertisements. Brookfield held that the defendant company was liable to the > plaintiff company, under the Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition > Laws of the U.S. Lanham Act (15 U.S. §§1114 and 1125(a), for the defendant’s > use of plaintiff’s trademarked term in defendant’s Meta tags in Defendant’s > websites, even if no actual damage existed. This case introduced the Initial > Interest Confusion liability theory that is still applicable in the U.S. > Courts. > > Brookfield was later complemented by Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape > Communications (Playboy). In Playboy liability was directed asserted on a > search engine company sued for infringement of the same provisions of the > U.S. Lanham Act. > > *What are the facts of Brookfield case?* > > Brookfield Communications, Inc. is a company that collects and distributes > information about the entertainment industry. In its initial stages, > Brookfield created and offered software for major Hollywood film studios > only. Later in 1993, they broadened their services and introduced a software > database with news and information about the entertainment industry intended > for a general or less specialized audience. This database was called > “MovieBuff.” > > West Coast Entertainment is a large video rental store with more than 500 > stores nation- wide. In 1991, West Coast Entertainment got a Federal > registration of the service mark “Movie Buff’s Movie Store.” Records show > that this service mark was related to the sell and rental of video cassettes > and video game cartridges. In February 1996, West Coast Entertainment > registered a domain name called “moviebuff.com.” > > In August 1996, Brookfield tried to register a domain name called > MovieBuff.com to no avail because this domain name had been registered by > West Coast Entertainment Company. > > In August 1997, Brookfield applied for the Federal registration of the mark > “movieBuff” that would identify Brookfield’s products and services. > Brookfield trademark application described its products as “computer > software providing data and information in the field of the motion picture > and television industries.” This Federal trademark was issued in September > 1998. Likewise, Brookfield had obtained a California state trademark > registration of the mark “movieBuff” in 1994 that covered “computer > software.” > > In October 1998, Brookfield knew that West Coast Entertainment Company > would launch an entertainment industry database in their already registered > website, “movieBuff.com” with similar information to that offered by > Brookfield’s through its “MovieBuff” software and displayed in their website > “Brookfieldcomm.com and “moviebuffonline.com.” > > Brookfield then requested West Coast Entertainment Company to desist this > endeavor because it would violate Brookfield’s trademark rights. West Coast > Entertainment Company paid no attention to this request and launched its > entertainment database in its “movieBuff.com website. Then, this lawsuit > commenced. > > *What was the legal issue in this case?* > > There were several legal issues in this case, some of them procedural > issues that will not be addressed in this summary. > > First, the Court considered whether there was an infringement of trademark > claim under section 32 of the Lanham Act (U.S. Trademark law); Second, > whether there was an unfair competition claim under section 43 of the same > Act. These two issues were solved after worthy and lengthy intellectual > property considerations that will be reviewed in other summary, especially > that related to the use of trademarked terms in domain names. > > Third, and most important for us in this discussion, the Court considered > whether West Coast Entertainment Company (defendant) was liable for the use > of the trademarked term “movieBuff” in the Meta tags in its website “ > westcoastvideo.com” or any other website different than “movieBuff.com.” > The Court decision was in the affirmative. The Court held that due to the > Initial Interest Confusion theory, West Coast Entertainment Company was > liable to Brookfield for the use of its trademarked term in the Meta tags of > defendant’s websites other than “movieBueff.com.” > > *What is the Initial Interest Confusion Theory and is it Actionable under > the U.S. Lanham Act?* > > Using the facts of this case, the Court appropriately defined this theory > as follows: > > “Web surfers looking for ‘Brookfield’s’ ‘MovieBuff’ products who are taken > by a search engine to ‘westcoastvideo.com’ will find a database similar > enough to ‘MovieBuff’ such that a sizeable number of consumers who were > originally looking for Brookfield’s products will simply decide to utilize > West Coast’s offering instead. Although there is no source confusion in the > sense that consumers know they are patronizing West Coast rather than > Brookfield, there is nevertheless initial interest confusion in the sense > that, by using ‘moviebuff.com’ or ‘moviebuff’ to divert people looking for > ‘MovieBuff’ to its web site, West Coast improperly benefits from the > goodwill that Brookfield developed in its mark.” > > The wisdom of this theory may be simply explained as follows; a consumer > looking for a specific product uses a search engine and types the name of > that product. Suddenly, that consumer is taken to the website of a company > that may not be the owner of this product’s trademarked term but that sells > similar products. Even though, this consumer may be clearly aware that he is > using a different website than the initial website he intended, he may > decide to stay in this website since it offers a similar product of the one > he was looking for. It is clear that the website using a trademarked in its > Meta tag is benefiting from the goodwill of this trademarked term to attract > consumers to its site. > > But, where is the confusion and violation of the Lanham Act? The Court > stressed that a consumer re-directed to a website different than the one > initially intended may not be confused as to what website he is visiting. > Yet, the fact that his initial interest for a company or website was > diverted to another is a type of confusion against which the Lanham Act > protects. This Court citing to Mobile Oil Corp. v. Pegasus Petroleum Corp. > said: “to capture initial consumer attention, even though no actual sale is > finally completed as a result of the confusion, may be still an > infringement.” Thus, one of the principal elements of infringement under the > Lanham Act, be it confusion, is found when a company uses a trademarked term > in its Meta tags. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Jan 5 09:45:53 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:15:53 -0430 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <24554587.33746.1262698311499.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d40> Message-ID: <4B4350A1.8010304@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 From fm-lists at st-kilda.org Tue Jan 5 10:50:46 2010 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 15:50:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B4350A1.8010304@paque.net> References: <24554587.33746.1262698311499.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d40> <4B4350A1.8010304@paque.net> Message-ID: <800F527C-7D25-477F-897D-E89237E93A20@st-kilda.org> On 5 Jan 2010, at 14:45, Ginger Paque wrote: > Should a user have to search the fine print to find the information > they want? Whatever regulation is done - a user will have to do that at some point. Educating the user needs to be done even if there is regulation because they will need to understand what the regulation covers. Personally my take on the original article is that the search rankings were correct, they had no valid new / original content, just a collection of links. The links might have been ordered or edited specially but they were moving me one step or more further away from the information that I would be looking for. The cynical might say it was sour grapes on the writer's part, I would put it down to a misunderstanding of what I as a user want :-) The other thing that seems to be missing from this debate is that we are not Google's customers, we are users and we can use something else if we choose to, probably because the search doesn't work well enough for us. Whilst I am sure that Google could repurpose their infrastructure into something else and continue as an entity if a better algorithm comes along from an upstart, the market is still wide open for a better engine to be as disruptive as they were. It will probably not come from the USA, the newer emerging markets will bring their own giants of the network world. f ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From toml at communisphere.com Tue Jan 5 11:32:50 2010 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:32:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality References: <24554587.33746.1262698311499.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d40> <4B4350A1.8010304@paque.net> <800F527C-7D25-477F-897D-E89237E93A20@st-kilda.org> Message-ID: <021001ca8e24$bb6de9f0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Fearghas, When you say: > Personally my take on the original article is that the search rankings > were correct, they had no valid new / original content, just a collection > of links. Maybe so, but consider this from a search developer at one of the major engine companies: A real-world web search engine, such as Google's or Microsoft's, has literally thousands or tens of thousands of ranking signals, updated or introduced multiple times during a single day. Additionally, the permutations are near infinite, as the major search engines are constantly running concurrent experiments in an effort to dynamically tune the system with real user queries and user happiness. Moreover, modern search engines such as Google go so far as to customize and personalize each result on the fly for each individual user, meaning that there is no canonical ranking to begin with. And all of this is predicated on top of a very unpredictable and continuously changing corpus of crawled data, with more and more of it arriving in near real-time. Given all of that as context, I wouldn't even know where to begin to try and make the ranking process visible to the user. There is no one algorithm, and no one corpus, no one frozen point in time, no way to even explain the ranking process to lay-people to begin with. A worthy challenge, but I'm not sure how practically it could be done. So creating transparent search is a challenging task indeed. Jimmy Wales' people gave a swipe at it a few years ago but got pounced on for its Alpha release. We've linked to that Wikia Search effort and others on our Transparent Search wiki page - http://bit.ly/TransparentSearch. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jan 5 11:35:13 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 08:35:13 -0800 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <800F527C-7D25-477F-897D-E89237E93A20@st-kilda.org> Message-ID: <49F6D907F18547D8A5A565C8CB1682F1@userPC> Quite honestly I find this whole discussion extremely odd. The assumption seems to be that "we" either as "users" or as "customers" or as autonomous "agents" interacting with Google are completely independent and free (and able) to make or remake ourselves (through learning more, through searching out competitors, through developing new companies etc.etc.) at will. This position ignores a couple of hundred years of anthropology/sociology that points out to anyone who may have missed it that we are not first and foremost "independent" actors free to make or remake ourselves at will. Rather we are creatures of culture and community and while some of us have significant opportunities because of our cultural and community backgrounds many of us do not. Simply exhorting those who don't, to "pull up their sox and compete like a man (or woman" is to my mind quite beside the point (and a position which itself is highly highly culture/nation bound... Some "users" will have the interest, skill, language to read fine print and (most) others won't... Some will have the capacity to see through Google if it abuses its power/position--(most) others won't... Some will have the awareness of knowledge categories (sociology of knowledge) to understand the ways in which Google is increasingly structuring/restructuring how we approach knowledge itself (others are arguing that Google is in fact influencing the very process of thinking/structure of thought but that is a different issue) and will then be able to take a critical position for themselves on how to prevent any possible misuse of that position but most (and daresay including most of those on this list) will not. That is why we have governments who have the mandate to intervene and regulate in the public interest. All of the above arguments on this issue could probably be made concerning things like food and auto safety, pollution standards, and child protection (suthorizing third parties to intervene in abusive relationships between parents and children). I personally see little difference apart from the same ideological blinkers that argued against each of the above interventions, in the instance of Google which is probably the most broadly (at least passively) influential (de facto monopoly) enterprise of the last decade. Mike Gurstein -----Original Message----- From: Fearghas McKay [mailto:fm-lists at st-kilda.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 7:51 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: Fearghas McKay Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality On 5 Jan 2010, at 14:45, Ginger Paque wrote: > Should a user have to search the fine print to find the information > they want? Whatever regulation is done - a user will have to do that at some point. Educating the user needs to be done even if there is regulation because they will need to understand what the regulation covers. Personally my take on the original article is that the search rankings were correct, they had no valid new / original content, just a collection of links. The links might have been ordered or edited specially but they were moving me one step or more further away from the information that I would be looking for. The cynical might say it was sour grapes on the writer's part, I would put it down to a misunderstanding of what I as a user want :-) The other thing that seems to be missing from this debate is that we are not Google's customers, we are users and we can use something else if we choose to, probably because the search doesn't work well enough for us. Whilst I am sure that Google could repurpose their infrastructure into something else and continue as an entity if a better algorithm comes along from an upstart, the market is still wide open for a better engine to be as disruptive as they were. It will probably not come from the USA, the newer emerging markets will bring their own giants of the network world. f ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From toml at communisphere.com Tue Jan 5 11:43:34 2010 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:43:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality (Corrected) Message-ID: <022701ca8e26$3a164580$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Fearghas, When you say: > Personally my take on the original article is that the search rankings > were correct, they had no valid new / original content, just a collection > of links. Maybe so, but consider this from a search developer at one of the major engine companies: > A real-world web search engine, such as Google's or Microsoft's, has > literally thousands or tens of thousands of ranking signals, updated or > introduced multiple times during a single day. Additionally, the > permutations are near infinite, as the major search engines are constantly > running concurrent experiments in an effort to dynamically tune the system > with real user queries and user happiness. > > Moreover, modern search engines such as Google go so far as to customize > and personalize each result on the fly for each individual user, meaning > that there is no canonical ranking to begin with. And all of this is > predicated on top of a very unpredictable and continuously changing corpus > of crawled data, with more and more of it arriving in near real-time. > > Given all of that as context, I wouldn't even know where to begin to try > and make the ranking process visible to the user. There is no one > algorithm, and no one corpus, no one frozen point in time, no way to even > explain the ranking process to lay-people to begin with. A worthy > challenge, but I'm not sure how practically it could be done. So creating transparent search is a challenging task indeed. Jimmy Wales' people gave a swipe at it a few years ago but got pounced on for its Alpha release. We've linked to that Wikia Search effort and others on our Transparent Search wiki page - http://bit.ly/TransparentSearch. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Jan 5 15:31:50 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 15:31:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B41A7D0.5070807@itforchange.net> References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <4B41A7D0.5070807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 3:33 AM, Parminder wrote: > > McTim > > Treating everything, in this case a company's (self-declared) aim of > organizing the world's information, as akin  to buying coke or  KFC chicken > is behind many problems of the modern world. And since you have, in the > past, declared your innocence regarding this socio-political term, I may say > that this is more or less what neoliberalism means. > But I'm not treating "everything" like this, just a simple consumer decision about which search engine to use. > You may however know that all drug manufacturers, for instance, are obliged > to disclose all ingredients of the drugs, whether it effects their > competitiveness or not. This is because someone sensible decided that drugs > are not the same as KFC chicken. However, they ARE regulated (in the USA) by the same federal agency. While it is true that drugs are not fast food, its not clear to me that Google is more like drugs than fast food. Media companies are obliged to clearly > demarcate editorial content from advertisement, once again some policy > makers were a bit nuanced, with public interest in mind. And you spoke about > patents, as Lee points out, all patents are to be publicly available > information. In fact patents were initially devised so that innovative ideas > could be widely shared. So if all patents are publicly available, and PageRank is patented, then isnt the point of this thread moot? > > But coming back to the main point about Raff's article. > >>>And it is not an ordinary article - it is a NYT op-ed, and so if Google >>> has something to say or refute it must issue a rejoinder. > there isn't a must involved, its up to them. If they choose to let it stand, they can certainly do that. >> http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html > > The link you forward does not address the principle point made by Raff's > article. Relevant parts are posted again for your reference. > > "Another way that Google exploits its control is through preferential > placement. With the introduction in 2007 of what it calls “universal > search,” Google began promoting its own services at or near the top of its > search results, bypassing the algorithms it uses to rank the services of > others. Google now favors its own price-comparison results for product > queries, its own map results for geographic queries, its own news results > for topical queries, and its own YouTube results for video queries. And > Google’s stated plans for universal search make it clear that this is only > the beginning." > > "Because of its domination of the global search market and ability to > penalize competitors while placing its own services at the top of its search > results, Google has a virtually unassailable competitive advantage. And > Google can deploy this advantage well beyond the confines of search to any > service it chooses. Wherever it does so, incumbents are toppled, new > entrants are suppressed and innovation is imperiled." http://www.google.com/search?q=bing+search&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a shows that this is not the case. > > Above is a clear allegation that without telling us "Google ... (is) > promoting its own services at or near the top of its search results, > bypassing the algorithms it uses to rank the services of others". I do not > know whether they actually do so or not. But if they do not do so, by my > reckoning, they will jump in with a strong rejoinder within hours of such an > allegation being carried in a NY op-ed article. So, lets assume that they do > so. Can anything be more anti-competitive than this. yes, do this: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=bMG&q=internet+search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g-c2g3g-c3g1g-c1 and you will see not a single Google page in the first page. It would be anticompetitve if they manually gave themselves 1st place, but they don't. > >>>Also there is definitely a connection between NN practices and allegations >>> about Google, both being anti-competitive activities. > >>What connection is that? > Cant see how you cannot make the connection. One of the worst NN violation > consists in telco's promoting their own services on their network over that > of their competitors. Google is doing the same at another level of the > network that it controls. Google provides services, these exist on webservers. What providers (telcos) want to do is to treat services/content from webserver A differently than content/services from webserver B. from http://www.savetheinternet.com/faq "Net Neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet. Net Neutrality simply means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination. Net Neutrality is the reason the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation and free speech online. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data -- not to choose which data to privilege with higher quality service." >Isnt it the same level of offense? not at all. why is it an "offense" to provide the services that most people want to use? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Jan 5 16:57:39 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 21:57:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <4B41A7D0.5070807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 15:31:50 on Tue, 5 Jan 2010, McTim writes >Net Neutrality simply means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents >Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web >content based on its source, ownership or destination. Isn't it also to do with discriminating traffic depending on whether you've been paid to give a better QoS to one kind of traffic over another? And don't some IPSs deliberately give priority to VoIP traffic - and if true, is that something to be frowned upon? Edge caching of some content compared to others might also be regarded as giving it "unfair" priority (why don't they edge-cache all traffic), but I hardly think that banning edge-caching is desirable. And most obviously, they speed up or slow down traffic depending on whether the subscriber has a 1Mbit, 2Mbit etc tail from his local POP, simply because of the capacity of that tail (to "its destination", the subscriber). ps I'm not saying that some sort of "Net Neutrality" in the core is a good or bad thing, just that definitions need to be very carefully written. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From katitza at datos-personales.org Tue Jan 5 17:35:37 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:35:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fwd:_[Madrid]_Petici=F3n_de_solidari?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?dad_con_la_Asociaci=F3n_de_Internautas?= References: Message-ID: <34DA4BCC-03FF-48D5-AF03-CA3F30476A3E@datos-personales.org> Pls. help us spread the word.! Begin forwarded message: > From: Víctor Domingo > Date: January 5, 2010 5:05:42 PM EST > To: > Subject: [Madrid] Petición de solidaridad con la Asociación de > Internautas > > for inmediate release, please spread :( > > original version at http://www.internautas.org/html/5906.html > ------------------ > > We have known by www.meneame.net and some communication media that > we have > been sentenced by the Supreme Court in the PUTASGAE case for hosting > others' contents, which were allegedly slanderous. The Asociación de > Internautas has not yet received any notification of the ruling and > it's > very surprised that this ruling is leaked to the media, even before > reaching the concerned ones. At this time we cannot comment anything > since > we are unaware of it. But we are sure of something: they want to > close the > Asociación de Internautas because we are very inconvenient to a > certain > sector of the society, a minority...but with a big power to decide and > influence. We > ask for > your help to remain open...and figthing. We can only promise > you...that the answer on our side, provided we remain open, will be in > accordance to this. > > 12/22/2009 - href="http://www.abc.es/20091222/medios-redes-web/sancion-euros-alojar-putasgae-200912221611.html > ">ABC > - ?18000 fine for hosting "www.putasgae.org" > > The Civil Room of the Supreme Court has confirmed the rule > condemning the > Asociación de Internautas to pay 18000 euros to the Sociedad General > de > Autores y Editores -T.N:the Spanish RIAA- for having hosted in its > website > pages like www.putasgae.org - T.N:fuckingsgae- and > www.antisgae.internautas.org, which in turn contained slanderous > expressions against the authors society. > > The magistrates of the high court, presided by judge Juan Antonio > Xiol, > have decided to reject in the High Court the appeal lodged by the > Asociación de Internautas as they interpret that they commited a > crime of > illegal intrusion in the right to honour of SGAE, as stated in a > ruling > made public today. > > The legal affair started in March 2004, when SGAE and its president, > Teddy > Bautista, filed a lawsuit against the Asociación de Internautas > before the > Madrid Courts. > > Specifically, the lawsuit stated that the website of Asociación de > Internautas was hosting associated pages with addresses like > "www.putasgae.org" -T.N:fuckingsgae- and > "www.antisgae.internautas.org", > which in turn contained expressions like "hired gun", "mob gang", > "fucking > pickpockets" or "the saying goes that thief who robs a thief > deserves one > hundred years of mercy". > > They deny its participation > > The 19th Section of the National High Court in Madrid acknowledged on > February the 6th, 2006, that SGAE was right and sentenced the > Asociación > de Internautas to pay 18000 euros to the authors society, as well as > ordering the removal of the webpages and the offensive contents of > those > webpages. As a complementary measure, the Asociación de Internautas > should > publish in their website the content of the ruling. > > In the appeal before the Supreme Court, the Asociación de Internautas > denied having any responsibility on the offensive contents of that > Internet pages and hid behind the right to the freedom of speech. The > defendant declared they did not had any participation in the making > nor > the selection of the contents of the webpages, adding they have not > had > effective knowledge of the opinions expressed in them against SGAE. > > The magistrates of the High Court reject the arguments of the > Asociación > de Internautas as they interpret that the "offensive" name of some > of the > webpages they were hosting in their Internet site (like "www.putasgae.org > " > ) were "sufficiently revealing" elements of the "slanderous style of > the > hosted data" > > We ask for your > help > to remain open... and fighting > > > Kind regards, > Víctor Domingo > > P.S: the info in the paper is not really accurate. The real fine is > twice > that amount plus (probably) the expenditure of the process. Since it > was a > double denounce (one as an entity -SGAE- and another one from its > president -Teddy Bautista-) the real fine will be higher than 36000 > euros. > > P.S.2 : our lawyer is currently studying the best option to solve the > situation, but just in case we have to face the total amount in a very > short time, our association will likely disappear soon :-( > > > La Asociación de Internautas necesita tu ayuda > > Informate: > http://www.internautas.org/html/5907.html > > http://www.internautas.org/donaciones.php > > También puedes donar enviando un SMS > > Desde España enviar AI al 27595 (Coste 1,20 euros + IVA) > _______________________________________________ > Madrid mailing list > Madrid at mailman.thepublicvoice.org > http://mailman.thepublicvoice.org/listinfo.cgi/madrid-thepublicvoice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Jan 5 23:37:59 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 23:37:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <4B41A7D0.5070807@itforchange.net> , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE496@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> The whole point of content delivery networks is to speed up the delivery of *some* content based on its source, ownership &/or destination. They may 'discriminate' against everyone who is not their paying customer. But CDNs aren't ISPs....and they have nothing to do with 'net neutrality.' Nothing to see here, move along please. ________________________________________ From: Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 4:57 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In message , at 15:31:50 on Tue, 5 Jan 2010, McTim writes >Net Neutrality simply means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents >Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web >content based on its source, ownership or destination. Isn't it also to do with discriminating traffic depending on whether you've been paid to give a better QoS to one kind of traffic over another? And don't some IPSs deliberately give priority to VoIP traffic - and if true, is that something to be frowned upon? Edge caching of some content compared to others might also be regarded as giving it "unfair" priority (why don't they edge-cache all traffic), but I hardly think that banning edge-caching is desirable. And most obviously, they speed up or slow down traffic depending on whether the subscriber has a 1Mbit, 2Mbit etc tail from his local POP, simply because of the capacity of that tail (to "its destination", the subscriber). ps I'm not saying that some sort of "Net Neutrality" in the core is a good or bad thing, just that definitions need to be very carefully written. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Jan 5 23:41:52 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 23:41:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <4B41A7D0.5070807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 5 Jan 2010, at 16:57, Roland Perry wrote: >> >> Net Neutrality simply means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents >> Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web >> content based on its source, ownership or destination. > > Isn't it also to do with discriminating traffic depending on whether you've been paid to give a better QoS to one kind of traffic over another? i don't believe so. that is differentiating a service offering from best effort service. to avoid confusion i think the Net Neutrality (NN) must be restricted to issues of content, source or protocol port and not bandwidth. (with the one exception that giving preference to network management or routing data necessary to run the network does not violate NN or is a permissible/necessary exception to NN) this has been said many times before and i apologize for repeating it, but i think it has to be said every time someone tries to include bandwidth under the definitions of what constitutes a breech of NN. bandwidth differentiation based on what someone can pay versus best effort for all, may still be wrong according to some judgements, but it is something different then NN. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From raul at sdnhq.undp.org Wed Jan 6 07:49:12 2010 From: raul at sdnhq.undp.org (Raul Zambrano) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 07:49:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] IGF and GAID Message-ID: Dear Hakik, Thanks for the inputs. Since you have mentioned UNDP, I think there is need for me to step up to the plate and clarify a few things. I think you are 100% right when you say that support for ICTD in the donor community has declined, specially if we compared current activities to say the late 1990s (and before the dot com crash). But on the other hand, I think what has really changed is the way most development practitioners see ICTD. IMHO, we all used to promote ICTD as an end in itself. That was the main goal in the 1990s and early 2000s. Not surprisingly there was a lot of emphasis on infrastructure, access and connectivity. >From 2003 on this has changed dramatically. Now we see ICT as en means to an end. Take for example the Millennium Development Goals. The targets here are all socio-economic and the idea is not to close the so-called "digital divide" but rather to use the new ICTs to close the traditional socio-economic and even governance divides that still exist in most developing countries. This is at least the approach we have taken at UNDP. This at the same time entails that we work more closely together to all those other practitioners who do the traditional development work and are not really aware of the opportunities that ICT offer to solve many (not all!) issues. In other words, ICTs are being mainstreamed into the core development areas. And the challenge today is to make such mainstreaming a more successful one -as we all know that still many development programme chose to ignore ICTs. UNDP is still very active in the areas of ICT and e-governance. In 2008 alone for example we have over 150 programmes in over 70 developing countries with budgets of over 200 million dollars. And many of these programmes are supporting the achievement in one way or another broader development goals. I believe many other donors and agencies are taking the same approach. On the other hand, I still see lots of opportunities to do lots of good work supporting ICTs. So the future is still bright but it is very different from the recent past. We just need to adjust to than and keep moving the agenda forward. Cheers, Raúl ___________________________________________________________________ Raúl Zambrano 304 East 45 Street Senior Policy Advisor 10th Floor ICTD & e-governance New York, NY 10017 UNDP/BDP/DGG 212 906-6654 raul at undp.org 212 906-6952 (Fax) http://ictd.undp.org/e-gov On Sat, 2 Jan 2010, Hakikur Rahman wrote: Dear Parminder, I agree with you cent percent, but wish I could have knew those strange reasons that you have mentioned. Not only UNDP, but seems majority of development partners are no more interested in ICTD. For many years, it has become stalled somewhere, when the field was really going to launch in many lagging nations. Hope GAID, as it has been expected could come up with something in this aspect. Best regards, Hakikur At 06:48 02-01-2010, Parminder wrote: Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: Dear Parminder As usually your message clearifies the debate ; therefore all my thanks. > concrete suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the resolution/ > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the > process will go forward). Isn't there another confusing situation with GAID as far as IG is dealing with Developing Countriers issues are concerned ? If this is the opinion of a majority among us, our relation with -and/or position on- GAID should be laid down accordingly.  Dear Jean-Louis, Development has never been a serious political issue at WSIS, and has been even less so post-WSIS. It is for this reason that the levels of interest of major actors and therefore the trajectories of the IGF and GAID have been very different. (It is a different manner that the subject of development is treated as a red herring with such regularity, and often deviousness, in the IGF that it would make a very interesting study/ story.) IG is very political because it concerns the governance, and thus the possibilities of shaping, of the Internet. Development in post-WSIS structures has been seen in largely in the normal 'charity view' of development, plus as new possibilities of political alliances for transnational businesses to expand their markets in developing countries. The fact is that, at present, no major actor of any significant power has really much interest in ICTD at the global level. (UNDP for some strange reasons has mostly withdrawn from this area.) So while IGF seems to be headed towards even keener political contests, GAID, post-Sarbuland, may be headed towards getting folded up into a regular UN department, doing mundane work (thats what I fear). The way GAID was run as a new age network had many huge problems - and we kept pointed them out at all GAID meetings - but it will be a mistake to forgo  its open new-age network structure for a bureaucratic UN department. What we need instead is a set of more focussed and clearer objectives and work plans, and a better network structure focussed on public interest actors, chiefly those involved with development issues. Parminder > many among us are focusing on just one thing - the > danger that ITU may take over the IGF Right. That is just another point of concern for me. not only because I was working in the (far) past with this Un Agency. I do think that IG needs a strong framework as to be able to apply in any country. Per se ITU isn't qualified for "governance" matters, but it happens to be an intergovernmental body that has a world-wide competence and standardization authority in the ICT/telecom domain, whose circuitry the Internet relies on. That's why I wonder if CS shouldn't rather put its efforts to gain both its place and respect inside this agency. The IGC should also remember that a large part of the CS orgs committed in the WSIS follow-up -especially those working in or with DCs- are struggling for CS being given a plain "ITU member" status.      > there could also be new > options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some > possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have > earlier alluded to. Among these thematic working groups one should deal with some issues related to technical matters such as critical Internet resources, network architecture, network neutrality, etc With my best wishes for a happy and fruitful New Year Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 31/12/09 10:20 > De : "Parminder" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF > > > > Hi All > > While the survey may or may not provide useful inputs for IGC's position > on IGF reform, we should in any case discuss the issue here on the list > so that the coordinators can attempt a consensus position. > > I do think that, in the formal consultation process at Sharm, IGC failed > to provide a comprehensive set of suggestions, even the ones which we > have often discussed in past and adopted by consensus. We may still have > a chance of putting our views forward, now through the channel of > government reps that may be on the lookout for possible good concrete > suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the resolution/ > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the > process will go forward). > > While seeking to trigger a discussion on this subject after Sharm I had > pointed to fact that many among us are focusing on just one thing - the > danger that ITU may take over the IGF, (or even that the IGF may be > closed down), and consequently not engaging as much as we should to > propose real improvements in the IGF. Apparently, the view is that if we > breathe but one word on possible improvements, it may be taken as > statement of failure of the IGF and be used by those keen on shutting > down the IGF, or seeking an ITU take over of it. > > One proof that these fears are hugely exaggerated, and even > diversionary, can be found in the fact that recently a UN general > assembly resolution for more stable public/ UN funding for the IGF > (which some groups tend to equate with possible ITU takeover) was shot > down, and another one calling for more voluntary contributions to the > trust fund (status quoist) was adopted. One can clearly see here who > calls the shots and which way the wind is blowing. > > So lets relax our exaggerated caution, and boldly seek IGF reform of the > kind we have asked for over the years, while there could also be new > options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some > possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have > earlier alluded to. I personally think that we should also seek a > clearer role for the MAG, and more agenda setting power for it, > including of developing recommendations and advices as per the IGF > mandate based on the proceedings of the IGF and other WGs etc. There > could be other possibilities, but we need to discuss them, and maybe > speak out at Feb meeting (even if thats not the agenda) to catch the ear > of some gov reps, and also pass our views on directly to interested gov > reps. > > Have a great last day of 2009, and wake up to a hopeful and fruitful 2010! > > Parminder > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- The following attachment was sent, but NOT saved in the Fcc copy: A Text/PLAIN (Name="message-footer.txt") segment of about 343 bytes. From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Jan 6 09:15:41 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:15:41 +0500 Subject: [governance] Open Patents? Hundreds of thousands of innovations - most in the form of patents Message-ID: <701af9f71001060615n779d3d3bq67bc1efb94114911@mail.gmail.com> Hi Everyone, This is the first time that Patents have gone open with Open Patents! Read on below: Source: Global Innovation Commons http://www.globalinnovationcommons.org/ What would happen if you were given over $2 trillion? That's right, if someone walked up to you and gave you $2 trillion. That could never happen, right? In fact, that is exactly what has just happened. While the patent system has been around since the 17th century when it was developed by nobles in Italy and England, it may surprise you that the system was designed to benefit you. Patents were supposed to be a public disclosure to advance science and useful knowledge. If someone shared sufficient information to teach the public about a novel development or useful technology, they would have a limited time (about 20 years) to decide who could use that idea. There's some bad news and some good news. First, the bad news: For the past 30 years, patents have been abused. Rather than serving the public's expansion of knowledge, they've been used as business and legal weapons. Over 50,000,000 patents covering everything you do have served to keep you from benefiting in many aspects of your life. Many life-saving treatments have been kept from the market because they threaten established business interests. The world's ecosystem has been severely damaged because efficiencies have been kept from entereing the market. In the face of all this, however, there is the good news: The thirty year "cold war" of innovation is over. Today, you now have access to it all. In the Global Innovation Commons, we have assembled hundreds of thousands of innovations - most in the form of patents - which are either expired, no-longer maintained (meaning that the fees to keep the patents in force have lapsed), disallowed, or unprotected in most, if not all, relevant markets. This means that, as of right now, you can take a step into a world full of possibilities, not roadblocks. You want clean water for China or Sudan - it's in here. You want carbon-free energy - it's in here. You want food production for Asia or South America - it's in here. But here's the catch. We're sharing this under a license. The license is really simple. If you use this information, you must share what you're doing with everyone else. If you improve upon it, you must share your improvements with everyone else. And finally, if you use any of this information, you must reference the "Global Innovation Commons." That's it. When you take the next step, turn the possibilities into realities. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From maxsenges at gmail.com Wed Jan 6 10:13:12 2010 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:13:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google and Global Voices announce new awards to promote online free expression Message-ID: <4d976d8e1001060713y44938adcp8857a99ee9cddbc3@mail.gmail.com> FYI all info also on http://breakingborders.net/ **Google and Global Voices announced the details of the “Breaking Borders Award” to honor those around the world who are fighting for free expression online. The award, totaling $30,000, will honor and support outstanding web projects, initiated by individuals or groups, that demonstrate courage, energy and resourcefulness in using the Internet to promote freedom of expression. Nominations for the award can be submitted starting today at www.breakingborders. *net *, the* *submission phase will end on 15th of February 2010. The award will be given in three categories, with a $10,000 prize for each awardee. 1. *Advocacy,* given to an activist or group that has used online tools to promote free expression or encourage political change 2. *Technology*, given to an individual or group that has created an important tool that enables free expression and expands access to information 3. *Policy*, given to a policy maker, government official or NGO leader who has made a notable contribution in the field The winners are going to be announced and honored in spring 2010. *"Free societies and prosperity are fundamentally based on freedom of expression, both offline and online," said David Drummond,** *Senior Vice President, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer*. "The internet is providing once unimaginable possibilities for political participation, free exchange of information and democratic movements around the world. * *"These awards will honor those who are making a real difference," Drummond said. "We look forward to our partnership with Global Voices and appreciate the support of Thomson Reuters. All of us believe we must develop, support and encourage projects that use the Internet to promote free expression and open up new horizons to citizens everywhere."* "The Internet has emerged as a critical front in the freedom of expression movement worldwide," said Sami Ben Gharbia, Advocacy Director at Global Voices. "In our work at Global Voices we're consistently impressed with the creative ways activists and others are finding to promote freedom of expression online. We're thrilled to be associated with an award recognizing the innovation that's taking place in this area." Nominations are open to individuals, groups or cooperative projects in any of the three categories. Participants can nominate themselves, as well as blogs, websites or other online presences. The nominees should have helped to promote the free circulation of ideas, stood up against censorship, helped local communities, raised awareness about a specific issue or cause, mobilized to change government policy or supported silenced voices. Nominations -- which should include a biography of the individual or a description of the group and text and video content displaying the nominee's work (see below) -- can be submitted at the Breaking Borders website www.breakingborders.net. All nominations will be handled confidentially. An international committee of experts, including representatives from the private sector and NGOs, will judge the nominees and determine the awards. Citizens all over the world are also invited to share their voices and points of view on the Freedom of Expression @ Google YouTube-Channel at www.youtube.com/googlefreeexpression. *About Google* Google's innovative search technologies and web services connect millions of people around the world and allow them to express themselves every day. Founded in 1998 by Stanford Ph.D. students Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Google today is a top Web property in all major global markets. Google's targeted advertising program provides businesses of all sizes with measurable results, while enhancing the overall Web experience for users. Google is headquartered in Silicon Valley with offices throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia. For more information, visit www.google.com. *About Global Voices* Global Voices (GV) has emerged as the leading news room for citizen voices from the developing world. GV is a vibrant global community of hundreds of people, helping individuals, media professionals and the development community access the diverse sources of information coming from citizen media. It is also a platform for innovation in global citizen media, designing and launching original projects that advance access and rights to information about and from the developing world. For more information, go to www.globalvoicesonline.org . * * *About Thomson Reuters * Thomson Reuters is the world's leading source of intelligent information for businesses and professionals. We combine industry expertise with innovative technology to deliver critical information to leading decision makers in the financial, legal, tax and accounting, healthcare and science and media markets, powered by the world's most trusted news organization. With headquarters in New York and major operations in London and Eagan, Minnesota, Thomson Reuters employs more than 50,000 people and operates in over 100 countries. Thomson Reuters shares are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX: TRI) and New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: TRI). For more information, go to www.thomsonreuters.com. * * * * *Press Contacts* *Google* Kay Oberbeck Head of Communications & Public Affairs Google Germany, Austria, Switzerland Tel: +49 (0)40-80 817 9226 E-Mail: kayo at google.com * * *Global Voices *Georgia Popplewell Managing Director Tel: +1 868 681 6103 email: georgiap at globalvoicesonline.org* * *Thomson Reuters *Alex Honeysett PR Specialist, Editorial, Reuters Tel: +44 (0)20 7542 8509 E-Mail: Alexandra.Honeysett at thomsonreuters.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *What is the Breaking Borders Award?* The Breaking Borders award was set up by Global Voices and Google to highlight the importance of free expression around the world and send a clear message to regimes that censor content both online and offline by honoring an outstanding webprojects by individuals or groups, who have shown courage, energy and resourcefulness in using the internet to promote freedom of expression, ensure that diverse political viewpoints are heard and stand up to those who censor information. *Who can participate?* Anyone with a relevant online presence can participate. Nominate yourself, a blog, website or other online presence you consider has helped promote the free circulation of ideas, stood up against censorship, helped local communities, raised awareness about a specific issue or cause, mobilised government or supported silenced voices. *Are there any geographical restrictions to participate?* No, the nominee can be based or support a cause anywhere in the world. *How do I nominate?* Fill-out the nomination form hereor send us an email to nomination at breakingborders.net. Please understand that we can only accept nominations if you provide the following information: a) the name and contact of the nominee (or the organisation/initiative) b) blog, website or other online presence that shows the value of the nominee, c) why the nominee merits the Breaking Borders Award and c) your contact details so we can get in touch with you should we have further questions. Also we would highly appreciate if you could send us the contacts of one or two people who know the nominee and his/her work well. *How will the winner be elected?* A group of international experts in the field of media, politics and social activism will thoroughly review all nominations and select the winner. *Will there only be one winner?*There will be winners in several categories - activist or voice that has promoted an important position or argument - tool-maker for online FoE - policy maker or politician *Will the winner receive a prize?* The awardees will receive a price of $$10'000 each *What is the deadline for nominations?* The deadline for nominations is the 15th of February 2010. *When will the winner be announced?* The awards will be announced in spring 2010. *I would like to upload a video supporting my nomination on the Freedom of Expression at Google YouTube channel.* Email us on nominations at breakingborders.de (separate to email above) to ask to have your video on our Playlist. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jan 6 12:02:27 2010 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 02:02:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Launch of Youth and IG Dynamic Coalition In-Reply-To: <4B3CCAD1.5000307@gmail.com> References: <4B3CCAD1.5000307@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Everyone, Ginger: Thank you very much for sharing the information with IGC community. we hope to have the support of the community. Of course, I will send updates to the mailing list to keep you informed. Regards Rafik 2010/1/1 Ginger Paque > New Year, new projects, new ideas, new voices: > > The Dynamic Coalition for Youth and IG will be launched soon, so anyone who > is interested in jointing/supporting that group, please contact Rafik > Dammak, the coordinator. The coalition would like to be organized and > operational before the OC in February, so this is a great time to get > involved. This is about their future, but it is our future too! Good luck to > this group. Please keep the IGC informed so we can support and collaborate > as appropriate. > Best, > Ginger > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From katitza at datos-personales.org Wed Jan 6 12:38:19 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:38:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] Stop Digital Strip Search in airports! References: <09E31CC3-70FA-4DA1-AEFC-9A866138761E@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <9EB59824-BCEA-4AD8-AB3B-D98E4531BFA8@datos-personales.org> (please, feel free to copy paste and re-post). -------------------- Stop Digital Strip Search in airports! http://thepublicvoice.org/2010/01/stop-digital-strip-search-in-airports.php As supporters of the Madrid Declaration, we are calling on national governments to suspend the deployment of body scanners until a full evaluation of the technology is completed. As the Declaration states, we: "Call for a moratorium on the development or implementation of new systems of mass surveillance, including facial recognition, whole body imaging, biometric identifiers, and embedded RFID tags, subject to a full and transparent evaluation by independent authorities and democratic debate;" The Madrid Privacy Declaration is a substantial document that reaffirms international instruments for privacy protection, identifies new challenges, and recommends specific actions. Recommended Actions: JOIN - Facebook Group: Stop Airport Strip Searches http://www.facebook.com/#/group.php?gid=179598280013&ref=mf ENDORSE - Privacy Coalition: Sign the Petition to the US Congress http://privacycoalition.org/stopwholebodyimaging/ ENDORSE: Madrid Privacy Declaration http://thepublicvoice.org/madrid-declaration/ SIGN - International Boycott of Body Scanners (IBBS) http://www.petitiononline.com/IBBS/petition.html SIGN - UK Petition to abandon the proposed rollout of airport body scanners. http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AirportScanners/ POST - Stop Digital Strip Searches image http://imperialkingdom.net/images/graphics/nakedmachine.jpg Reference materials: Madrid Privacy Declaration http://thepublicvoice.org/madrid-declaration/ EPIC, Whole Body Imaging Technology http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/ EPIC, Spotlight on Surveillance http://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/spotlight/0605/ Privacy International, "statement on proposed deployments of body scanners in airports" http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-565802 TSA, Imaging Technology http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/imaging_technology.shtm Michael Chertoff ("Former homeland security chief argues for whole- body imaging") http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123101746.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From davidcrine at aol.com Wed Jan 6 12:45:14 2010 From: davidcrine at aol.com (davidcrine at aol.com) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:45:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: My New 2010 Book:Web Engineering Advancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of Information Technology In-Reply-To: <8CC5D0D6AE4632B-63EC-660F@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CC5CFF93E44101-63EC-45B7@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> <8CC5D008BEAADF3-63EC-482D@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> <8CC5D0D6AE4632B-63EC-660F@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CC5D0F2326EB9F-63EC-68C9@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> From: davidcrine at aol.com Sent: Wed, Jan 6, 2010 9:53 am Subject: My New 2010 Book:Web Engineering Advancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of Information Technology Dear Colleagues: I am inviting you to order a copy of our newly authored book or to have your library order a copy as it comes out here in January 2010. I hope that you and your colleagues or students enjoy this new 2010 book to further your development or research interests. Respectfully yours, David C. Rine Professor Emeritus Volgenau School of Information Technology and Engineering George Mason University ******************** Introducingthe latest release from IGI Global: WebEngineering Advancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of InformationTechnology ISBN:978-1-60566-719-5; 408 pp; January 2010 Publishedunder Information Science Reference, an imprint of IGI Global http://www.igi-global.com/reference/details.asp?id=35224 Edited by:Ghazi I. Alkhatib, Princess Sumaya University for Technology, Jordan; David C.Rine, George Mason University, USA DESCRIPTION Ascountless failures in information technology and Web-based systems are causedby an incorrect understanding of knowledge sharing, an increased awareness ofmodern, fundamental industry concepts becomes crucial to Web and interfacedevelopers. Web EngineeringAdvancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of Information Technology examines integrated approaches innew dimensions of social and organizational knowledge sharing with emphasis onintelligent and personalized access. A defining collection of fieldadvancements, this publication provides current research, applications, andtechniques in testing and validation of Web systems. **************************************** “WebEngineering Advancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of InformationTechnology reflects on the future dimensions of Information Technology andWeb Engineering (ITWE), and expands on two major themes to emphasizeintelligence, provisioning, and personalization of Web engineering utilizingtechnologies for the advancement of ITWE applications.” - Ghazi I.Alkhatib, Applied Science University - Amman, Jordan **************************************** TOPICSCOVERED Agent-enabledsemantic Web GUI testingmethodology Imagemining Intelligentsemantic Web services Objectoriented software testing Pattern-orientedWeb engineering Voicedriven emotion recognizer mobile phone Scenariodriven decision systems Softwarearchitecture analysis Userinterfaces for improving cell phone devices Formore information about Web Engineering Advancements and Trends: Building NewDimensions of Information Technology, you can view the title informationsheet at http://www.igi-global.com/downloads/pdf/35224.pdf.To view the Table of Contents and a complete list of contributors online go to http://www.igi-global.com/reference/details.asp?ID=35224&v=tableOfContents. ABOUTTHE EDITORS Ghazi Alkhatib is an assistant professor of software engineering at theCollege of Computer Science and Information Technology, Applied ScienceUniversity (Amman, Jordan). In 1984, he obtained his Doctor of BusinessAdministration from Mississippi State University in information systems withminors in computer science and accounting. Since then, he has been engaged inteaching, consulting, training, and research in the area of computerinformation systems in the US and gulf countries. In addition to his researchinterests in databases and systems analysis and design, he has publishedseveral articles and presented many papers in regional and internationalconferences on software processes, knowledge management, e-business, Webservices, and agent software, workflow, and portal/grid computing integrationwith Web services. DavidRine has beenpracticing, teaching, and researching engineered software development for overthirty years. Prior to joining George Mason University, he served in variousleadership roles in the IEEE Computer Society and co-founded two of thetechnical committees. He joined George Mason University in 1985 and was thefounding chair of the Department of Computer Science and one of the founders ofthe (Volgenau) School of Information Technology and Engineering. Rine hasreceived numerous research, teaching, and service awards from computer scienceand engineering societies and associations, including the IEEE CentennialAward, IEEE Pioneer Award, IEEE Computer Society Meritorious Service Awards,the IEEE Computer Society Special Awards, IEEE Computer Society 50thanniversary Golden Core Award, and historical IEEE Computer Society Honor Rolland Distinguished Technical Services Awards. He has been a pioneer in graduate,undergraduate, and high school education, producing computer science texts andleading establishment of the International Advanced Placement Computer Scienceprogram for the nation's high school students, co-designer of the firstcomputer science and engineering curriculum (1976), and the first masters insoftware engineering curriculum (1978). He has been an editor of a number ofprestigious software-oriented journals. During his tenure, he has authored over300 published works and has directed many PhD students. Complementing his workat GMU, he has worked on many international technology and relief projects invarious countries and made many life-long international friendships. His paststudents are the most important record of his technical achievements. **************************************** Toview the full contents of this publication, check for Web EngineeringAdvancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of Information Technology inyour institution’s library. If you library does not currently own thistitle, please recommend it to your librarian. **************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Jan 6 20:11:17 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 06:11:17 +0500 Subject: [governance] February Consultation and Meetings Message-ID: <701af9f71001061711s59eafab3nf35cd4fc09073d7c@mail.gmail.com> Dear Friends and Members, As you are all aware about the IGF Open Consultation and MAG meetings in February 2010, I would like to request those people that cannot participate but would like to be heard during these events to forward their interventions so that we can read and extend them on the floor during the Open Consultation. I further request statements to be brief, concise and to the point as the floor has to be passed on to the wide participation during the consultation. As for the MAG, we have a strong Civil Society MAG group including myself. The MAG is responsible for suggesting the design/organization of the IGF2010. IF you have concerns regarding the programming of the IGF2010, you can forward your statements for intervention to me so that they can be shared amongst our other team members usually at a morning meeting between us before the meeting. Once again, the requirement for being brief, concise and to the point applies here as well! Ideas for interventions can involve statements such as but not limited to: 1. Issues surfaced during the IGF2009 in Sharam. 2. Developing Country Participation/Inclusion Issues. 3. Main Program / Main Theme Issues for IGF2010. 4. Human Rights Issues/Rights on the Internet Issues. 5. Development Agenda for Internet Governance Issues. 6. Youth and Gender Participation Issues. For your convenience and live correspondence, I will be available on Skype (ID:fouadbajwa , kindly don't forget to introduce yourself while adding me) throughout the three days of meetings (1 day open consultation + 2 days MAG meetings). I look forward to assisting your interventions. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jan 7 03:47:14 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:47:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE496@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <4B41A7D0.5070807@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE496@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE496 at suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, at 23:37:59 on Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Lee W McKnight writes >The whole point of content delivery networks is to speed up the >delivery of *some* content based on its source, ownership &/or >destination. > >They may 'discriminate' against everyone who is not their paying customer. > >But CDNs aren't ISPs....and they have nothing to do with 'net neutrality.' To the end user, a CDN is indistinguishable from their ISP; and especially so when the CDN has been deployed by the ISP to reduce the ISP's core bandwidth requirements, or to speed certain content to their customers at the ISP's expense. But your comments neatly highlight the issue that I was bringing to the list: that there are considerable disagreements about what "net neutrality" means to different people. Roland. >________________________________________ >From: Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] >Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 4:57 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality > >In message , >at 15:31:50 on Tue, 5 Jan 2010, McTim writes > >>Net Neutrality simply means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents >>Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web >>content based on its source, ownership or destination. > >Isn't it also to do with discriminating traffic depending on whether >you've been paid to give a better QoS to one kind of traffic over >another? > >And don't some IPSs deliberately give priority to VoIP traffic - and if >true, is that something to be frowned upon? > >Edge caching of some content compared to others might also be regarded >as giving it "unfair" priority (why don't they edge-cache all traffic), >but I hardly think that banning edge-caching is desirable. > >And most obviously, they speed up or slow down traffic depending on >whether the subscriber has a 1Mbit, 2Mbit etc tail from his local POP, >simply because of the capacity of that tail (to "its destination", the >subscriber). > >ps I'm not saying that some sort of "Net Neutrality" in the core is a >good or bad thing, just that definitions need to be very carefully >written. >-- >Roland Perry >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jan 7 03:52:07 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:52:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <4B41A7D0.5070807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 23:41:52 on Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Avri Doria writes >to avoid confusion i think the Net Neutrality (NN) must be restricted >to issues of content, source or protocol port and not bandwidth. In other words, all that it means is "no blocking". While that's a valuable concept, why invent a [confusing] new name for it? Most discussions of NN that I've seen embrace the concept that one kind of content would merely be given priority over another (so disdavantaged traffic is delivered slower, rather than delivered never). The way the end-user perceives such a disadvantage is indistingushable from throttled bandwidth. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jan 7 06:30:12 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:00:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <4B41A7D0.5070807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B45C5C4.8040408@itforchange.net> Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 23:41:52 > on Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Avri Doria writes >> to avoid confusion i think the Net Neutrality (NN) must be restricted >> to issues of content, source or protocol port and not bandwidth. > > In other words, all that it means is "no blocking". > > While that's a valuable concept, why invent a [confusing] new name for > it? Most discussions of NN that I've seen embrace the concept that one > kind of content would merely be given priority over another (so > disdavantaged traffic is delivered slower, rather than delivered never). > > The way the end-user perceives such a disadvantage is indistingushable > from throttled bandwidth. Not true. There is a world of difference between a user getting all her traffic slow, because of low bandwidth, and selective content coming to her slow or fast depending on whether the content provider pays extra or not. In the former case, all content gets treated (and presented to the user) equally, even if equally badly. In the latter case different content gets 'presented' to the user differently, and thus effects her choice. This becomes especially relevant when there are many competing possible sources of information etc that the user may seek. Some may say again (as they said in the discussion on Google), the user should know and be able to select what source of information she wants, and if she is clear about it, A non-NN network is the same as less bandwidth for her (since even if the other source downloads faster and better she will not change her preference). But as Micheal has explained this is not the right reading of real human and social behavior, in its power-laden complexities. parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ceo at bnnrc.net Thu Jan 7 06:46:56 2010 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 17:46:56 +0600 Subject: [governance] IPv6 Forum Bangladesh Has Been Founded Message-ID: <00a701ca8f8f$2b7df210$1300a8c0@ceo> IPv6 Forum Bangladesh Has Been Founded ___________________ Dhaka/Luxembourg, January 6, 2010 - The IPv6 Forum welcomes Bangladesh as its newest member with the establishment of the IPv6 Forum Bangladesh under the leadership of S M Altaf Hossain as its National Convener and Mr. Sohel Awrangzeb as Member Secretary. . Mr. S M Altaf Hossain and Mr. Sohel Awrangzeb-S21S are 20 plus years in ICT sector in Bangladesh. Work experience with world's leading Corporation/ Enterprises. Other convening committee members are Mr. AHM Bazlur Rahman-S21BR is Chief Executive Officer, Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) & Member, Strategy Council UN-Global Alliance for ICT and Development (UN GAID) as Joint Convener and Mr. M A Haque Anu, member of the convening committee. The prime objective of the IPv6 Forum and its members is to promote deployment and swifter uptake of the new Internet using the new Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) with support from industry, education, research communities and government agencies enabling equitable access to technology and knowledge. "The IPv6 Forum Bangladesh has been created to extend to the Bangladeshi Internet community a strong voice and representation in the new Internet world to enable equal access to knowledge and education on New Generation Internet technologies and create momentum in deploying IPv6" said Latif Ladid, IPv6 Forum President. "The IPv6 Forum Bangladesh will attract key stakeholders from government, industry and academia to design the IPv6 roadmap and vision together for Bangladesh to be among the first to embrace the New Internet World based on IPv6" Stated Mr. AHM Bazlur Rahman, Joint Convener, IPv6 Forum Bangladesh. The Internet World has been using the Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) for the last two decades. Despite its tremendous success, IPv4 is showing signs of strain especially in its fast depleting IP address space and its growing security concerns. IPv6 preserves everything good in today's Internet, and adds much more, such as virtually unlimited IP address space to connect everyone and everything, stateless auto-configuration, seamless mobility, automated network management, mandated security and new optional service levels. About IPv6 Forum Bangladesh The IPv6 Forum Bangladesh is a chapter of the IPv6 Forum dedicated to the advancement and propagation of IPv6 in Bangladesh. Comprised of individual members, as opposed to corporate sponsors, its mission is to provide technical leadership and innovative thought for the successful integration of IPv6 into all facets of networking and telecommunications infrastructure, present and future. About IPv6 Forum The IPv6 Forum is a world-wide consortium of international Internet service providers (ISPs) and National Research & Education Networks (NRENs), with a mission to promote IPv6 by improving market and user awareness, creating a quality and secure New Generation Internet and allowing world-wide equitable access to knowledge and technology. The key focus of the IPv6 Forum today is to provide technical guidance for the deployment of IPv6. IPv6 Summits are organized by the IPv6 Forum and staged in various locations around the world to provide industry and market with the best available information on this rapidly advancing technology. Please visit http://www.ipv6forum.com Organization Contact: AHM Bazlur Rahman, Joint Convener ceo at bnnrc.net Mr. Sohel Awrangzeb, Member Secretary sohel.awrangzeb at gmail.com Mr. S M Altaf Hossain, National Convener, smaltaf at gmail.com IPv6 Forum Contact: Latif Ladid Luxembourg +352 30 71 34 Latif.ladid at ipv6forum.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Jan 7 07:34:13 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 07:34:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <49F6D907F18547D8A5A565C8CB1682F1@userPC> References: <49F6D907F18547D8A5A565C8CB1682F1@userPC> Message-ID: Hi, I actually have a lot of trouble accepting this analysis. I for one believe that people do have a choice no matter how much society and culture or businesses interests are prevailing on us. Yes. the constraints of that choice may not be pleasant and we may have no 'good' choices, but we do have the choice. So what ever sociology or anthropology may convince you of, I am convinced that we do remain independent agents. In terms of the contracts with small print. I read most of them, and then decide to use the service I want regardless. Whereas my housemate reads every word and opts not to use any of the services. A choice. Yes propaganda abounds, but we can either listen to it or not listen to it. And yes, most people choose to follow along and do what is expected of them by the culture and the powers that be and most importantly their neighbors. But there are always some who don't - there are always those who make a different choice. Yes, there are those who have no access and hence don't have the choice to use or not use. but that is a different issue. a. On 5 Jan 2010, at 11:35, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Quite honestly I find this whole discussion extremely odd. The assumption > seems to be that "we" either as "users" or as "customers" or as autonomous > "agents" interacting with Google are completely independent and free (and > able) to make or remake ourselves (through learning more, through searching > out competitors, through developing new companies etc.etc.) at will. > > This position ignores a couple of hundred years of anthropology/sociology > that points out to anyone who may have missed it that we are not first and > foremost "independent" actors free to make or remake ourselves at will. > Rather we are creatures of culture and community and while some of us have > significant opportunities because of our cultural and community backgrounds > many of us do not. Simply exhorting those who don't, to "pull up their sox > and compete like a man (or woman" is to my mind quite beside the point (and > a position which itself is highly highly culture/nation bound... > > Some "users" will have the interest, skill, language to read fine print and > (most) others won't... Some will have the capacity to see through Google if > it abuses its power/position--(most) others won't... Some will have the > awareness of knowledge categories (sociology of knowledge) to understand the > ways in which Google is increasingly structuring/restructuring how we > approach knowledge itself (others are arguing that Google is in fact > influencing the very process of thinking/structure of thought but that is a > different issue) and will then be able to take a critical position for > themselves on how to prevent any possible misuse of that position but most > (and daresay including most of those on this list) will not. > > That is why we have governments who have the mandate to intervene and > regulate in the public interest. All of the above arguments on this issue > could probably be made concerning things like food and auto safety, > pollution standards, and child protection (suthorizing third parties to > intervene in abusive relationships between parents and children). > > I personally see little difference apart from the same ideological blinkers > that argued against each of the above interventions, in the instance of > Google which is probably the most broadly (at least passively) influential > (de facto monopoly) enterprise of the last decade. > > Mike Gurstein > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fearghas McKay [mailto:fm-lists at st-kilda.org] > Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 7:51 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: Fearghas McKay > Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality > > > > On 5 Jan 2010, at 14:45, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Should a user have to search the fine print to find the information >> they want? > > Whatever regulation is done - a user will have to do that at some point. > > Educating the user needs to be done even if there is regulation > because they will need to understand what the regulation covers. > > Personally my take on the original article is that the search rankings > were correct, they had no valid new / original content, just a > collection of links. The links might have been ordered or edited > specially but they were moving me one step or more further away from > the information that I would be looking for. The cynical might say it > was sour grapes on the writer's part, I would put it down to a > misunderstanding of what I as a user want :-) > > The other thing that seems to be missing from this debate is that we > are not Google's customers, we are users and we can use something else > if we choose to, probably because the search doesn't work well enough > for us. Whilst I am sure that Google could repurpose their > infrastructure into something else and continue as an entity if a > better algorithm comes along from an upstart, the market is still wide > open for a better engine to be as disruptive as they were. It will > probably not come from the USA, the newer emerging markets will bring > their own giants of the network world. > > f > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jan 7 08:05:37 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 13:05:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B45C5C4.8040408@itforchange.net> References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <4B41A7D0.5070807@itforchange.net> <4B45C5C4.8040408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4B45C5C4.8040408 at itforchange.net>, at 17:00:12 on Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Parminder writes >Roland Perry wrote: >> In message , at >>23:41:52 on Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Avri Doria writes >>> to avoid confusion i think the Net Neutrality (NN) must be restricted >>> to issues of content, source or protocol port and not bandwidth. >> >> In other words, all that it means is "no blocking". >> >> While that's a valuable concept, why invent a [confusing] new name >>for it? Most discussions of NN that I've seen embrace the concept >>that one kind of content would merely be given priority over another >>(so disdavantaged traffic is delivered slower, rather than delivered >> >> >> The way the end-user perceives such a disadvantage is >>indistingushable from throttled bandwidth. >Not true. There is a world of difference between a user getting all her >traffic slow, because of low bandwidth, and selective content coming to >her slow or fast depending on whether the content provider pays extra >or not. In the former case, all content gets treated (and presented to >the user) equally, even if equally badly. In the latter case different >content gets 'presented' to the user differently, and thus effects her >choice. This becomes especially relevant when there are many competing >possible sources of information etc that the user may seek. I disagree. Content doesn't all arrive at the same speed, even in the absence of specific throttling measures. It depends on the quality of the servers, the end-to-end bandwidth constraints, and also the degree of "bloat" that the information provider attaches to his content. Don't be fooled into thinking that the only speed-of-loading constraint which applies is that of the user's local loop (or indeed some mythical throttling by the ISP of content from providers who have failed to grease their palm sufficiently). And to the end user, *even* content which has been throttled for that reason is indistinguishable from content that has a naturally low end-to-end-bandwidth. And that is in fact the only point I am trying to make here. I presume, by the way, that you also disagree with [what as far as I can tell is] Avri's proposition: that NN is only about content whose delivery is entirely blocked, rather than content whose delivery is discriminated against by the application of 'artificial slowness'. >Some may say again (as they said in the discussion on Google), the user >should know and be able to select what source of information she wants, >and if she is clear about it, A non-NN network is the same as less >bandwidth for her (since even if the other source downloads faster and >better she will not change her preference). But as Micheal has >explained this is not the right reading of real human and social >behavior, in its power-laden complexities. There's allegedly an eight-second rule (people will wait eight seconds for content to load before losing patience). I feel that this is a rule devised by people with very good Internet connectivity, and fast computers. If the information matters to you, waiting longer is acceptable, especially if your normal experience of the Internet is that all pages take more than eight seconds to load. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jan 7 08:28:08 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 05:28:08 -0800 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Well, as Margaret Thatcher (in)famously said at one point, "there is no society" (and thus presumably no "social/public interest") and then she and her accolytes proceeded to ensure through policy and process that her wish was made flesh to the continuing detriment of all. Best, M -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 4:34 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality Hi, I actually have a lot of trouble accepting this analysis. I for one believe that people do have a choice no matter how much society and culture or businesses interests are prevailing on us. Yes. the constraints of that choice may not be pleasant and we may have no 'good' choices, but we do have the choice. So what ever sociology or anthropology may convince you of, I am convinced that we do remain independent agents. In terms of the contracts with small print. I read most of them, and then decide to use the service I want regardless. Whereas my housemate reads every word and opts not to use any of the services. A choice. Yes propaganda abounds, but we can either listen to it or not listen to it. And yes, most people choose to follow along and do what is expected of them by the culture and the powers that be and most importantly their neighbors. But there are always some who don't - there are always those who make a different choice. Yes, there are those who have no access and hence don't have the choice to use or not use. but that is a different issue. a. On 5 Jan 2010, at 11:35, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Quite honestly I find this whole discussion extremely odd. The > assumption seems to be that "we" either as "users" or as "customers" > or as autonomous "agents" interacting with Google are completely > independent and free (and > able) to make or remake ourselves (through learning more, through searching > out competitors, through developing new companies etc.etc.) at will. > > This position ignores a couple of hundred years of > anthropology/sociology that points out to anyone who may have missed > it that we are not first and foremost "independent" actors free to > make or remake ourselves at will. Rather we are creatures of culture > and community and while some of us have significant opportunities > because of our cultural and community backgrounds many of us do not. > Simply exhorting those who don't, to "pull up their sox and compete > like a man (or woman" is to my mind quite beside the point (and a > position which itself is highly highly culture/nation bound... > > Some "users" will have the interest, skill, language to read fine > print and > (most) others won't... Some will have the capacity to see through Google if > it abuses its power/position--(most) others won't... Some will have the > awareness of knowledge categories (sociology of knowledge) to understand the > ways in which Google is increasingly structuring/restructuring how we > approach knowledge itself (others are arguing that Google is in fact > influencing the very process of thinking/structure of thought but that is a > different issue) and will then be able to take a critical position for > themselves on how to prevent any possible misuse of that position but most > (and daresay including most of those on this list) will not. > > That is why we have governments who have the mandate to intervene and > regulate in the public interest. All of the above arguments on this > issue could probably be made concerning things like food and auto > safety, pollution standards, and child protection (suthorizing third > parties to intervene in abusive relationships between parents and children). > > I personally see little difference apart from the same ideological > blinkers that argued against each of the above interventions, in the > instance of Google which is probably the most broadly (at least > passively) influential (de facto monopoly) enterprise of the last > decade. > > Mike Gurstein > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fearghas McKay [mailto:fm-lists at st-kilda.org] > Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 7:51 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: Fearghas McKay > Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net > neutrality > > > > On 5 Jan 2010, at 14:45, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Should a user have to search the fine print to find the information >> they want? > > Whatever regulation is done - a user will have to do that at some > point. > > Educating the user needs to be done even if there is regulation > because they will need to understand what the regulation covers. > > Personally my take on the original article is that the search rankings > were correct, they had no valid new / original content, just a > collection of links. The links might have been ordered or edited > specially but they were moving me one step or more further away from > the information that I would be looking for. The cynical might say it > was sour grapes on the writer's part, I would put it down to a > misunderstanding of what I as a user want :-) > > The other thing that seems to be missing from this debate is that we > are not Google's customers, we are users and we can use something else > if we choose to, probably because the search doesn't work well enough > for us. Whilst I am sure that Google could repurpose their > infrastructure into something else and continue as an entity if a > better algorithm comes along from an upstart, the market is still wide > open for a better engine to be as disruptive as they were. It will > probably not come from the USA, the newer emerging markets will bring > their own giants of the network world. > > f > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jan 7 09:09:48 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 14:09:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> In message , at 05:28:08 on Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Michael Gurstein writes >Well, as Margaret Thatcher (in)famously said at one point, "there is no >society" (and thus presumably no "social/public interest") and then she and >her accolytes proceeded to ensure through policy and process that her wish >was made flesh to the continuing detriment of all. "I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society." So it's nothing to do with "social/public interest", but whether or not people can expect a magic financial crutch to support them in their adversity. It's almost exactly the same set of issues as the current USA healthcare debate. I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current mechanisms were failing their collective citizens? And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a nutshell. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Jan 7 10:06:17 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:06:17 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B45F869.6040009@wzb.eu> > > I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got > themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived ills > on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current mechanisms > were failing their collective citizens? Here is quote from Larry Lessig that I recently used: "In a world drowning in spam, computer viruses, identity theft, copyright 'piracy', and the sexual exploitation of children, the resolve against regulation has weakened. We all love the Net. But if some government could really deliver on the promise to erase all the bads of this space, most of us would gladly sign up." I think what has changed over the last decade is that the belief in the Internet's capacity for for self-regulation has lost its original traction. But public regulation hasn't become the default solution. The debate is about where, when and how governments should play a role. In this respect, the Internet has become more similar to other policy fields, hasn't it? jeanette > > And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a nutshell. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Thu Jan 7 10:19:53 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:19:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <8F972BDA-AADF-4B65-80FC-3C994A44D8ED@acm.org> Hi, This seems to describe things in such black and white contrast: either governments must come in and give us a crutch or we have a dog eat dog Thatcherite regime. I think the appropriate balance varies over time - and in my opinion this is a time where while the absolute power or responsibility of the government is (or should be) waning, it is still not completely out of the equation. If I look at the discussions we have had on these topics, i think most of use fall somewhere on a very wide spectrum between those who demand a government crutch from the nanny state and Thatcherite laissez faire regime. a. On 7 Jan 2010, at 09:09, Roland Perry wrote: > So it's nothing to do with "social/public interest", but whether or not > people can expect a magic financial crutch to support them in their > adversity. It's almost exactly the same set of issues as the current USA > healthcare debate. > > I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got > themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived ills > on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current mechanisms > were failing their collective citizens? > > And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a nutshell. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Jan 7 10:22:47 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:22:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B45F869.6040009@wzb.eu> References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> <4B45F869.6040009@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Hi, And there is a lot of space between self-regualtion and government regulation. This is where I look for some multistakeholder solution to the regulatory conundrum. This includes a balance between self-regualtion and top down regulatory regimes. a. On 7 Jan 2010, at 10:06, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > >> I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got >> themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived ills >> on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current mechanisms >> were failing their collective citizens? > > Here is quote from Larry Lessig that I recently used: > > "In a world drowning in spam, computer viruses, identity theft, copyright 'piracy', and the sexual exploitation of children, the resolve against regulation has weakened. We all love the Net. But if some government could really deliver on the promise to erase all the bads of this space, most of us would gladly sign up." > > I think what has changed over the last decade is that the belief in the Internet's capacity for for self-regulation has lost its original traction. But public regulation hasn't become the default solution. The debate is about where, when and how governments should play a role. In this respect, the Internet has become more similar to other policy fields, hasn't it? > jeanette >> And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a nutshell. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Jan 7 10:35:36 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:35:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> <4B45F869.6040009@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B45FF48.2040204@wzb.eu> Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > And there is a lot of space between self-regualtion and government > regulation. Yes, and I would say that this space might or should vary with the issues at hand. My feeling is that "top down regulatory regimes" are nowadays in most areas more of a fiction than a reality. Such regulatory options may be part of the black and white rhetorics we would like to leave behind. jeanette > > This is where I look for some multistakeholder solution to the > regulatory conundrum. This includes a balance between > self-regualtion and top down regulatory regimes. > > a. > > On 7 Jan 2010, at 10:06, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> >> >>> I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments >>> got themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the >>> perceived ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe >>> the current mechanisms were failing their collective citizens? >> Here is quote from Larry Lessig that I recently used: >> >> "In a world drowning in spam, computer viruses, identity theft, >> copyright 'piracy', and the sexual exploitation of children, the >> resolve against regulation has weakened. We all love the Net. But >> if some government could really deliver on the promise to erase all >> the bads of this space, most of us would gladly sign up." >> >> I think what has changed over the last decade is that the belief in >> the Internet's capacity for for self-regulation has lost its >> original traction. But public regulation hasn't become the default >> solution. The debate is about where, when and how governments >> should play a role. In this respect, the Internet has become more >> similar to other policy fields, hasn't it? jeanette >>> And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a >>> nutshell. >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any >> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jan 7 12:03:45 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 17:03:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B45F869.6040009@wzb.eu> References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> <4B45F869.6040009@wzb.eu> Message-ID: In message <4B45F869.6040009 at wzb.eu>, at 15:06:17 on Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Jeanette Hofmann writes >> I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments >>got themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the >>perceived ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the >>current mechanisms were failing their collective citizens? > >Here is quote from Larry Lessig that I recently used: > >"In a world drowning in spam, computer viruses, identity theft, >copyright 'piracy', and the sexual exploitation of children, the >resolve against regulation has weakened. We all love the Net. But if >some government could really deliver on the promise to erase all the >bads of this space, most of us would gladly sign up." I hadn't seen that quote before, but it does sum up what a lot of "ordinary" people think. >I think what has changed over the last decade is that the belief in the >Internet's capacity for for self-regulation has lost its original >traction. But public regulation hasn't become the default solution. The >debate is about where, when and how governments should play a role. The joy we have (all this debate, meetings etc) is that the Internet is going thorough this particular phase in its lifecycle. Automobiles went through it a couple of generations ago. I'm not a big fan of the expression "self regulation" because that implies "self control in the absence of any applicable legal framework". But most of the issues involved *do* have a legal framework, but working out how that legal framework applies to the online world is difficult, and in the mean time the authorities are happy if the "industry" applies a common-sense interpretation of the existing legal framework, ahead of the various law enforcement and judicial systems getting their collective brains into the right gear. That's what I call co-regulation. The sorts of issues being regulated in this way are competition, privacy, defamation, trademark & copyright, obscene & harmful material, and 'duty of care' of a supplier to his customer and to the public. >In this respect, the Internet has become more similar to other policy >fields, hasn't it? The only other policy field that I can think of which is at approximately the same stage is Human Embryo Research. >> And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a >>nutshell. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jan 7 12:19:41 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 17:19:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <8F972BDA-AADF-4B65-80FC-3C994A44D8ED@acm.org> References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> <8F972BDA-AADF-4B65-80FC-3C994A44D8ED@acm.org> Message-ID: In message <8F972BDA-AADF-4B65-80FC-3C994A44D8ED at acm.org>, at 10:19:53 on Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Avri Doria writes >Hi, > >This seems to describe things in such black and white contrast: either >governments must come in and give us a crutch or we have a dog eat dog >Thatcherite regime. That's a misrepresentation of the Thatcherite doctrine. The UK continued with policies that were much more socialist than many other countries (Nationalised Health and Education, widespread welfare system etc). Her statement, which is basically "There's no such thing as a Disney-esque Fairy Godmother" did not deny the possibility that the State should continue to organise a very wide range of state-run benefits, and collect large amounts of taxation to fund them! R. >On 7 Jan 2010, at 09:09, Roland Perry wrote: > >> So it's nothing to do with "social/public interest", but whether or not >> people can expect a magic financial crutch to support them in their >> adversity. It's almost exactly the same set of issues as the current USA >> healthcare debate. >> >> I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got >> themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived ills >> on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current mechanisms >> were failing their collective citizens? >> >> And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a nutshell. > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jan 7 12:47:45 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 09:47:45 -0800 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <8F972BDA-AADF-4B65-80FC-3C994A44D8ED@acm.org> Message-ID: Since when did acting in the public interest become "demanding a government crutch"? These kinds of rhetorical flourishes indicate a deep if apparently unconscious set of ideological blinkers that in fact belie the rather more compromising content of the statement being made. MBG -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:20 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality Hi, This seems to describe things in such black and white contrast: either governments must come in and give us a crutch or we have a dog eat dog Thatcherite regime. I think the appropriate balance varies over time - and in my opinion this is a time where while the absolute power or responsibility of the government is (or should be) waning, it is still not completely out of the equation. If I look at the discussions we have had on these topics, i think most of use fall somewhere on a very wide spectrum between those who demand a government crutch from the nanny state and Thatcherite laissez faire regime. a. On 7 Jan 2010, at 09:09, Roland Perry wrote: > So it's nothing to do with "social/public interest", but whether or > not people can expect a magic financial crutch to support them in > their adversity. It's almost exactly the same set of issues as the > current USA healthcare debate. > > I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got > themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived > ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current > mechanisms were failing their collective citizens? > > And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a > nutshell. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jan 7 13:20:58 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:20:58 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] AP on France and "Taxing Google" Message-ID: <61FC74879EFA4A2494DFF6F974A52B25@userPC> Bringing together several current discussion threads on this elist... M From: Lauren Weinstein Date: January 7, 2010 12:08:59 PM EST To: nnsquad at nnsquad.org Subject: [ NNSquad ] AP on France and "Taxing Google" AP on France and "Taxing Google" http://bit.ly/6SfQZe (AP) --Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator Archives !DSPAM:2676,4b4618a9177551127410012! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Thu Jan 7 13:44:47 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 13:44:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <798056DC-19B6-40CB-8DD8-697C58A16B4C@acm.org> Hi, I was just quoting someone else having spoken of it this way on the list - and it is an edge position that some hold. Though I admit that I am one of those who favors minimal government involvement in the Internet except as an equal partner in an multistakeholder regime. BTW: i do not understand how you get to describe other people as having blinkers on. How does one achieve that perspective? I can understand recognizing when I realize I have blinkers on, but do not understand how one can make such an evaluation about others. But it is just my personal view that Thatcher's politics were dog eat dog politics. a. On 7 Jan 2010, at 12:47, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Since when did acting in the public interest become "demanding a government > crutch"? > > These kinds of rhetorical flourishes indicate a deep if apparently > unconscious set of ideological blinkers that in fact belie the rather more > compromising content of the statement being made. > > MBG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] > Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:20 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality > > > Hi, > > This seems to describe things in such black and white contrast: either > governments must come in and give us a crutch or we have a dog eat dog > Thatcherite regime. > > I think the appropriate balance varies over time - and in my opinion this is > a time where while the absolute power or responsibility of the government is > (or should be) waning, it is still not completely out of the equation. If I > look at the discussions we have had on these topics, i think most of use > fall somewhere on a very wide spectrum between those who demand a government > crutch from the nanny state and Thatcherite laissez faire regime. > > a. > > > > On 7 Jan 2010, at 09:09, Roland Perry wrote: > >> So it's nothing to do with "social/public interest", but whether or >> not people can expect a magic financial crutch to support them in >> their adversity. It's almost exactly the same set of issues as the >> current USA healthcare debate. >> >> I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got >> themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived >> ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current >> mechanisms were failing their collective citizens? >> >> And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a >> nutshell. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jan 7 13:56:12 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:56:12 -0800 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <798056DC-19B6-40CB-8DD8-697C58A16B4C@acm.org> Message-ID: For a rather more general discussion (he doesn't use the term "blinkers" directly but the idea is there) take a look at George Lakoff's deconstruction of political language in various of his writings and how the Republicans have managed to reframe the political discussion in the US by the use of terminology such as "government crutches" (public support), "death taxes" (inheritance taxes), "union bosses" (union leaders) etc.etc.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff MBG -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 10:45 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality Hi, I was just quoting someone else having spoken of it this way on the list - and it is an edge position that some hold. Though I admit that I am one of those who favors minimal government involvement in the Internet except as an equal partner in an multistakeholder regime. BTW: i do not understand how you get to describe other people as having blinkers on. How does one achieve that perspective? I can understand recognizing when I realize I have blinkers on, but do not understand how one can make such an evaluation about others. But it is just my personal view that Thatcher's politics were dog eat dog politics. a. On 7 Jan 2010, at 12:47, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Since when did acting in the public interest become "demanding a > government crutch"? > > These kinds of rhetorical flourishes indicate a deep if apparently > unconscious set of ideological blinkers that in fact belie the rather > more compromising content of the statement being made. > > MBG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] > Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:20 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality > > > Hi, > > This seems to describe things in such black and white contrast: > either governments must come in and give us a crutch or we have a dog > eat dog Thatcherite regime. > > I think the appropriate balance varies over time - and in my opinion > this is a time where while the absolute power or responsibility of the > government is (or should be) waning, it is still not completely out of > the equation. If I look at the discussions we have had on these > topics, i think most of use fall somewhere on a very wide spectrum > between those who demand a government crutch from the nanny state and > Thatcherite laissez faire regime. > > a. > > > > On 7 Jan 2010, at 09:09, Roland Perry wrote: > >> So it's nothing to do with "social/public interest", but whether or >> not people can expect a magic financial crutch to support them in >> their adversity. It's almost exactly the same set of issues as the >> current USA healthcare debate. >> >> I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got >> themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived >> ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current >> mechanisms were failing their collective citizens? >> >> And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a >> nutshell. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Jan 7 14:51:41 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:51:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Aw: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality Message-ID: With all this talk about Self-Governance and/or/vs. Governmental Oversight... Does anyone have any opinion on forming our own Government? [pro/con] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Thu Jan 7 15:47:55 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 22:47:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: First we would need to have our own country, right? Rui 2010/1/7 Yehuda Katz : > With all this talk about Self-Governance and/or/vs. Governmental Oversight... > > Does anyone have any opinion on forming our own Government? [pro/con] > ____________________________________________________________ > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From toml at communisphere.com Thu Jan 7 16:21:46 2010 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:21:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality References: Message-ID: <12e201ca8fdf$6cfb7be0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Rui, Countries are tough to come by, generally requiring the investment of a lot of death to create one. But what about using a city-TLD as a model for a modern day governance system? There are going to be dozens, if not hundreds, of them over the next decade and nary a thought has gone on at ICANN or this list as to their governance. It's long been my thinking that an exemplary city-TLD governance structure would mature into the infrastructure for the traditional governance structure. Our early effort on this are presented at http://bit.ly/CityGovernance. Tom Lowenhaupt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rui Correia" To: ; "Yehuda Katz" Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 3:47 PM Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality First we would need to have our own country, right? Rui 2010/1/7 Yehuda Katz : > With all this talk about Self-Governance and/or/vs. Governmental > Oversight... > > Does anyone have any opinion on forming our own Government? [pro/con] > ____________________________________________________________ > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Thu Jan 7 16:50:15 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:50:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1F03D94E-40BC-46D6-8597-5093CC006B40@acm.org> hi, Every side in a discussion is constantly involved in designing new sy to name the things under discussion in ways that suits their arguments. And that is why it safe to talk about the span from government crutch to the right of access - because the phrases indicate where someone sits in the spectrum of opinion. a. On 7 Jan 2010, at 13:56, Michael Gurstein wrote: > For a rather more general discussion (he doesn't use the term "blinkers" > directly but the idea is there) take a look at George Lakoff's > deconstruction of political language in various of his writings and how the > Republicans have managed to reframe the political discussion in the US by > the use of terminology such as "government crutches" (public support), > "death taxes" (inheritance taxes), "union bosses" (union leaders) > etc.etc.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff > > MBG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] > Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 10:45 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality > > > Hi, > > I was just quoting someone else having spoken of it this way on the list - > and it is an edge position that some hold. > Though I admit that I am one of those who favors minimal government > involvement in the Internet except as an equal partner in an > multistakeholder regime. > > BTW: i do not understand how you get to describe other people as having > blinkers on. How does one achieve that perspective? I can understand > recognizing when I realize I have blinkers on, but do not understand how one > can make such an evaluation about others. > > But it is just my personal view that Thatcher's politics were dog eat dog > politics. > > a. > > On 7 Jan 2010, at 12:47, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> Since when did acting in the public interest become "demanding a >> government crutch"? >> >> These kinds of rhetorical flourishes indicate a deep if apparently >> unconscious set of ideological blinkers that in fact belie the rather >> more compromising content of the statement being made. >> >> MBG >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] >> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:20 AM >> To: IGC >> Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality >> >> >> Hi, >> >> This seems to describe things in such black and white contrast: >> either governments must come in and give us a crutch or we have a dog >> eat dog Thatcherite regime. >> >> I think the appropriate balance varies over time - and in my opinion >> this is a time where while the absolute power or responsibility of the >> government is (or should be) waning, it is still not completely out of >> the equation. If I look at the discussions we have had on these >> topics, i think most of use fall somewhere on a very wide spectrum >> between those who demand a government crutch from the nanny state and >> Thatcherite laissez faire regime. >> >> a. >> >> >> >> On 7 Jan 2010, at 09:09, Roland Perry wrote: >> >>> So it's nothing to do with "social/public interest", but whether or >>> not people can expect a magic financial crutch to support them in >>> their adversity. It's almost exactly the same set of issues as the >>> current USA healthcare debate. >>> >>> I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got >>> themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived >>> ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current >>> mechanisms were failing their collective citizens? >>> >>> And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a >>> nutshell. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From katitza at datos-personales.org Thu Jan 7 18:41:08 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 18:41:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] EPIC: 2009 Year in Review References: Message-ID: <5A3B4A89-0D99-45D8-A33D-B6626950EE12@datos-personales.org> I thought this might be of interest. > > = > ====================================================================== > E P I C A l e r t > = > ====================================================================== > Year in Review January 7, 2010 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Published by the > Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) > Washington, D.C. > > http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_yir2009.html > > ====================================================================== > > > 2 0 0 9 P R I V A C Y Y E A R I N R E V I E W / > > 2 0 1 0 P R I V A C Y I S S U E S T O W A T C H > > ====================================================================== > Top Privacy Stories 2009 > - Data Breaches and ID Theft on the Rise > - Supreme Court Strikes Down Strip Searches, Enhanced Penalties for > Identity Proxies > - White House Visitors Now Public Information > - Facebook: Sharing is Caring > - Tiger's Texting > - Biometric Company Goes Bankrupt. Fingerprints for Sale? > - Behavioral Tracking > - Europe Updates Communications Privacy Law > - Medical Privacy Victories in Congress and the Courts > - Octomom Privacy Breach > > Top Privacy Issues to Watch in 2010 > - Cloud Computing > - Smartgrid: Will Your Power Meter be Spying on You? > - Federal Trade Commission and Privacy > - Data Breach Legislation > - Invasion of the Body Scanners > - Biometric Identification > - Electronic Privacy at the Supreme Court > - Google Books and Reader Privacy > - De-identification Techniques > - Global Privacy Standards > > > 2009 was a busy year for privacy. Big Internet firms, such as Facebook > and Google, created new challenges for Internet users as personal data > became more valuable to advertisers. Congress considered many privacy > bills, though few became law. The Supreme Court decided several > privacy > cases, including a student strip-search case. The Department of > Homeland Security stepped up surveillance of the American public even > as a known terrorist boarded a plane with explosive material hidden in > his underwear. The year promises even more news with biometric > identifiers, body scans, Congressional hearings, a Supreme Court case > on text messages, and the related privacy challenges. > > > Here are the Top Ten Privacy Stories of 2009 and the Top Ten Privacy > Issue to Watch in 2010 from the Electronic Privacy Information Center > (EPIC): > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Data Breaches and ID Theft on the Rise > > Non-profits and the Federal Trade Commission reported a continued rise > in data breaches and identity theft in 2009. The FTC received 313,982 > identity theft consumer complaints during the past year, topping all > previous records. Lawmakers have been unable to pass meaningful > legislation so identity thieves and data breachers can look forward to > another great - and profitable - year! > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Supreme Court Strikes Down Strip Searches, Enhanced Penalties for > Identity Proxies > > Concluding that perhaps it was not reasonable to strip search a > teenage > girl in the hunt for a single tablet of ibuprofin, the Supreme Court > ruled 8-1 that such a search violated the Fourth Amendment because > "there were no reasons to suspect the drugs presented a danger or were > concealed in her underwear." The Court also ruled unanimously that > individuals who provide identification numbers that are not their own, > but don't intentionally impersonate others, cannot be subject to harsh > criminal punishments under federal law. But in a 5-4 decision, the > Supreme Court rejected the constitutional right of a convicted > individual to access his DNA to prove innocence. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > White House Visitors Now Public Information > > In an effort to promote government accountability, the White House > decided to release the names of people who visit the White House. The > policy includes grade school classes from Des Moines but excludes > Supreme Court nominees and national security advisors. This is a good > topic for a high school paper. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Facebook: Sharing is Caring > > Oil and water. Privacy and Facebook. The world's top social network > service navigated the privacy waters with mixed success in 2009. Early > in the year, a proposed change in the Terms of Service that > transferred > control over user data to Facebook triggered a massive protest. More > than 100,000 users signed up for, no surprise, "Facebook Users Against > the New Terms of Service." Then a year-end change to the privacy > settings led to a formal complaint at the Federal Trade Commission, > charging unfair and deceptive trade practices. Share that news item > with Everyone! > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Tiger's Texting > > The downward slide of golf phenom Tiger Woods began when a few of his > texting buddies decided to push the save button instead of delete. > Tiger's texts made their way into the national tabloids, the stories > followed, and the endorsements soon disappeared. This was all the more > amazing since Tiger's yacht is named "Privacy." Warning to celebs: be > careful what you text and with whom you text. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Biometric Company Goes Bankrupt. Fingerprints for Sale? > > Clear, a company that offered air travellers the fast lane at > airports, > may now be playing fast and loose with the customer information it > acquired. As a Registered Traveler program, the company obtained > biometric identifiers -- digital fingerprints and iris scans -- on > more > than 100,000 frequent flyers. Clear, operated by Verified Identity > Pass, also gathered up detailed personal histories for its private > clearance program. But once the company went bankrupt, the biometric > ddatabase was the main asset to sell. Lawyers for the customers > stepped > in and stopped the sale of personal identifiers. Bad news for identity > thieves hoping to make it quickly through airline security. > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Behavioral Tracking > > In 2009 consumer advocates focused on the companies that focus on > consumers. A coalition of privacy groups urged Congress to crack down > on behavorial advertising. Lawmakers and the FTC expressed interest. > Rep. Rick Boucher announced that he is drafting a bill that would > impose strict rules on websites and advertisers. Boucher said his goal > is "to ensure that consumers know what information is being collected > about them on the Web and how it is being used, and to give them > control over that information." > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Europe Updates Communications Privacy Law > > Toward the end of the Year, the European Union established new > Internet > policies, including a right to Internet access, net neutrality > obligations, and strengthened consumer protections. Under the ePrivacy > directive, communications service providers will also be required to > notify consumers of security breaches, persistent identifiers > ("cookies") will become opt-in, there will be enhanced penalties for > spammers, and national data protection agencies will receive new > enforcement powers. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Medical Privacy Victories in Congress and the Courts > > Early in the year, President Obama signed into law the HI-TECH Act of > 2009. The Act established new medical privacy safeguards. Medical > privacy also had victories in the courts as judges grew leery of the > sale of sensitive prescription information. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Octomom Privacy Breach > > There are some personal details that even aspiring reality show stars > do not want to share with the world. After the birth of Nadia > ("Octomom") Suleman's octuplets, more than two dozen hospital > employees took peeks at Octomom's medical records. Apparently US > Weekly > was not providing detailed enough information. The privacy breaches > cost the hospital a cool $250,000, the maximum allowed under > California > privacy laws. > > ====================================================================== > ISSUES TO WATCH IN 2010 > ====================================================================== > > New technologies with interesting privacy implications have been > introduced, the government has moved into social networking, the > Supreme Court will rule on workplace privacy, and the FTC may take a > new stance on regulation. Here are the top ten privacy topics to pay > attention to in 2010. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Cloud Computing > > What happens to your data when it's in the cloud? That's the issue > that > policymakers will look at more closely in 2010, not only because users > are moving data to the cloud, but also because government agencies > are. > Still, the privacy and security risks are real, as the FTC recently > reminded the FCC, following a petition from EPIC. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Smartgrid: Will Your Power Meter be Spying on You? > > Standards are still being developed for the Smart Grid, a host of > technologies that will modernize the existing electrical grid. The > Smart Grid could enable more efficient delivery of electricity and > allow consumers to make more informed energy use decisions. But Smart > Grid technologies also raises troubling privacy possibilities that > there could be very detailed tracking – and record keeping - of > individuals’ electricity use. New error message: "Don't you think > you've been in the sauna long enough?" > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Federal Trade Commission and Privacy > > In 2009, the Federal Trade Commission signaled that it was moving away > from the “Notice and Choice,” “hands off” approach to privacy > protection. In 2010, the FTC fills in the blanks with a new approach > to > privacy protection. Welcome to the 21st century, Washington DC. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Data Breach Legislation > > Congress is moving to adopt comprehensive data breach legislation and > also to regulate the data broker industry. A Data Breach Bill has > passed the House, similar legilsation is pending in the Senate. If > passed, the Data Breach bill could provide uniform data breach > protections, but also threatens to undermine stricter state data > breach > laws. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Invasion of the Body Scanners > > The Christmas Day attack has renewed calls for the deployment of > digital strip search devices in the nation's airports. Never mind that > the devices are not designed to detect the liquid or powder > explosives, > favored by the bad guys, the machines will subject American air > travellers to the full monty, captured in high-res. Heading to the > airport? Better hit the gym first. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Biometric Identification > > Even though one company tried to sell the biometric identifiers on > 100,000 affluent air travelers (see Top Privacy Stories 2009), don't > expect a let up in the rush to digitize fingerprints and iris scans. > For advice on how to protect your privacy in a world of biometrics, > check out Tom Cruise in Minority Report. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Electronic Privacy at the Supreme Court > > Do workers have privacy rights in their pagers and cell phones? That > is > a question before the Supreme Court in 2010. The case will allow the > court to decide whether government employees have a constitutional > right to keep text messages private. And that will hinge on whether > employees have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when they text > while at work. > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Google Books and Reader Privacy > > And while you're downloading the latest digital text on new threats to > your privacy, you might be wondering who's keeping track of your > intellectual interest. The answer could be Google. The Internet giant > spent the last several years scanning the books in the nation's > libraries and now wants to make them available online. Only problem is > that Google is planning to track everyone who checks out a digital > text > unless a federal court in New York says otherwise. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > De-identification Techniques > > The holy grail of privacy protection is still genuine techniques for > deidentification and anonymization. But finding technqiues that really > work is turning out to be a tough problem. Expect more focus on this > issue in 2010, as companies and agencies try to develop privacy > friendly services. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Global Privacy Standards > > The move is on to establish global standards for personal data. > Advocates are rallying behind the Madrid Privacy Declaration, while > government officials meet in closed door sessions to hammer out > agreements. The big question at the end of 2010 is whether there will > be more privacy, more surveillance, or more of both. > > ====================================================================== > Privacy Policy > ====================================================================== > > The EPIC Alert mailing list is used only to mail the EPIC Alert and to > send notices about EPIC activities. We do not sell, rent or share our > mailing list. We also intend to challenge any subpoena or other legal > process seeking access to our mailing list. We do not enhance (link > to > other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name. > > In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe your e-mail address > from this list, please follow the above instructions under > "subscription information." > > ====================================================================== > About EPIC > ====================================================================== > > The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public interest > research > center in Washington, DC. It was established in 1994 to focus public > attention on emerging privacy issues such as the Clipper Chip, the > Digital Telephony proposal, national ID cards, medical record privacy, > and the collection and sale of personal information. EPIC publishes > the > EPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Act litigation, and > conducts > policy research. For more information, visit http://www.epic.org or > write EPIC, 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC > 20009. > +1 202 483 1140 (tel), +1 202 483 1248 (fax). > > If you'd like to support the work of the Electronic Privacy > Information > Center, contributions are welcome and fully tax-deductible. Checks > should be made out to "EPIC" and sent to 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, > Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. Or you can contribute online at: > > http://www.epic.org/donate > > Your contributions will help support Freedom of Information Act and > First Amendment litigation, strong and effective advocacy for the > right > of privacy and efforts to oppose government regulation of encryption > and expanding wiretapping powers. > > Thank you for your support. > > ------------------ End EPIC 2009 Year in Review ------------------ > > . > > _______________________________________________ > EPIC-press mailing list > EPIC-press at mailinglists.epic.org > http://mailinglists.epic.org/mailman/listinfo/epic-press -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Thu Jan 7 18:45:02 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:45:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] DPI technology and regulatory move Message-ID: Dear all list members, I got involved in a study group on DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) and behavioral targeting advertising (and its policy issues) with ISP, Ad agency layers, and our government as observer in Japan. Of course, I am on the side of protecting the privacy as well as confidentiality of communication, with proper balance with business. Do you know how current DPI technology works in some detail? One target is, of course, Phorm, as they intend to start business in Korea and eventually in Japan. Yet under the "NDA" the vendors (ISPs) are quiet about how they use the technology without interfering the privacy. There is a plan that they will start business in Korea, after giving up in UK and US market, at least for the time being. If you know any bit of info, or source/reference, or expert, that will be great. Many thanks in advance. izumi -- >> 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 8 01:30:16 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:00:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B46D0F8.101@itforchange.net> Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 05:28:08 on > Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Michael Gurstein writes > >> Well, as Margaret Thatcher (in)famously said at one point, "there is no >> society" (and thus presumably no "social/public interest") and then she and >> her accolytes proceeded to ensure through policy and process that her wish >> was made flesh to the continuing detriment of all. >> > > "I think we've been through a period where too many people have > been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the > government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a > grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're > casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no > such thing as society." > > So it's nothing to do with "social/public interest", but whether or not > people can expect a magic financial crutch to support them in their > adversity. It's almost exactly the same set of issues as the current USA > healthcare debate. > How we see it greatly depends on whether one sits over decades and generations of structural advantages, built often through through unjust and even illegal means, or whether one is at the wrong end of socio-economically exploitative structures. I think it is too easily assumed that all of us who do not need these 'magic crutches' are somehow special and we deserve what we have, and those who do not have all what we have deserve it too. Thats an ideology. And there is another ideology opposed to this one which believes that there is at present large scale social injustice which has to be corrected by strong positive measures for social justice - which often involves redistributive measures which you call as 'magic financial crutch'. > I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got > themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived ills > on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current mechanisms > were failing their collective citizens? > or maybe the question is How many on the list believe that the Internet, in the directions that it is taking, may exacerbate entrenched structural advantaged and disadvantages, It is therefore important to have pulbic interest policies to ensure "realization of internationally agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic development" (from IGC's charter). And such policies are only possible if there are adequate public policy mechanisms, and therefore such mechanisms should be organised as soon as possible before it is too late. Obviously governments will have to play an important in any such mechanisms, but these mechanisms should be much more widely participative, follow global HR and other socio-political norms, be based on clearly articulated principles (constitutionalism) and not be ad-hoc, transparent and involve a strong role of civil society organizations. BTW, would like to have an IGC vote between the two propositions. We can propose a question - which of the two formulations in your view more correctly describes the situation vis a vis the current evolution of the Internet, need (or not) for public policies, and the role of governments in this relation. parminder > And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a nutshell. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 8 01:45:02 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:15:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B46D0F8.101@itforchange.net> References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> <4B46D0F8.101@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B46D46E.4040403@itforchange.net> Parminder wrote: > > > Roland Perry wrote: >> I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got >> themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived ills >> on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current mechanisms >> were failing their collective citizens? >> > or maybe the question is > > How many on the list believe that the Internet, in the directions that > it is taking, may exacerbate entrenched structural advantaged and > disadvantages, It is therefore important to have pulbic interest > policies to ensure "realization of internationally agreed human > rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, and both > social and economic development" (from IGC's charter). And such > policies are only possible if there are adequate public policy > mechanisms, and therefore such mechanisms should be organised as soon > as possible before it is too late. Obviously governments will have to > play an important in any such mechanisms, but these mechanisms should > be much more widely participative, follow global HR and other > socio-political norms, be based on clearly articulated principles > (constitutionalism) and not be ad-hoc, transparent and involve a > strong role of civil society organizations. > > > BTW, would like to have an IGC vote between the two propositions. We > can propose a question - which of the two formulations in your view > more correctly describes the situation vis a vis the current evolution > of the Internet, need (or not) for public policies, and the role of > governments in this relation. > > parminder >> And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a nutshell. >> Which I consider is an ideologically committed attempt to rig the IG space and debate (as I have arguned often earlier, also citing it as a reason why many of us arent speaking up for IGF reform when the time is ripe). I would argue instead that the propositon I wrote is 'most of the IG debate in a nutshell' 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jan 8 04:35:27 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:35:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] DPI technology and regulatory move In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 08:45:02 on Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Izumi AIZU writes >Do you know how current DPI technology works in some detail? >One target is, of course, Phorm, as they intend to start business >in Korea and eventually in Japan. Yet under the "NDA" the vendors >(ISPs) are quiet about how they use the technology without >interfering the privacy. There is a plan that they will start business >in Korea, after giving up in UK and US market, at least for the >time being. > >If you know any bit of info, or source/reference, or expert, that >will be great http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2008/04/04/the-phorm-webwise-system/ Is a great deal of information, written by my friend, and technical expert, Dr Richard Clayton. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Fri Jan 8 04:46:35 2010 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:46:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] DPI technology and regulatory move In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B46FEFB.5010406@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Izumi AIZU schrieb: > I got involved in a study group on DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) > and behavioral targeting advertising (and its policy issues) with ISP, > Ad agency layers, and our government as observer in Japan. Interesting. I thought DPI-based advertizing was almost dead after Phorm ceased its operations in the US and the UK. > Do you know how current DPI technology works in some detail? > One target is, of course, Phorm, There is a detailed analysis of the Phorm system from FIPR: Clayton, Richard. 2008. "The Phorm "Webwise" System." Cambridge: Cambridge University Computer Lab, http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2008/04/04/the-phorm-webwise-system/. In general, DPI normally works with "configurable computing" (FPGA or CPLD) instead of von-Neumann-machines, because of the high speeds required for processing the data. The interesting parameters are: 1) speed of throughput (bandwidth to be inspected) 2) number of policy rules (malware patterns, prohibited protocols, ...) 3) search algorithm 4) depth of inspection (newer DPI gear allows for about 35 bytes depth, cheaper machines only look at layer-7 headers) 5) policy decisions (dropping, copying, re-directing, inserting, throttling, ... packets). While DPI has mostly been an extra box ISPs had to put into their network, it is nowadays converging with routers and switches. Search for "layer-7-switches" or "application-based routing". Further reading: gives a fairly good bibliography. Other sources are at https://www.dpacket.org/ and in my ISA conference paper from last year: . For the geeks: German DPI vendor ipoque has recently open-sourced its PACE DPI engine: Xilinx also offers a full traffic management suite for their FPGA machines: Hope this helps, Ralf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jan 8 05:34:18 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 10:34:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B46D0F8.101@itforchange.net> References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> <4B46D0F8.101@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3uR9CBSqowRLFAqw@perry.co.uk> In message <4B46D0F8.101 at itforchange.net>, at 12:00:16 on Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Parminder writes >there is another ideology  opposed to this one which believes that >there is at present large scale social injustice which has to be >corrected by strong positive measures for social justice - which often >involves redistributive measures which you call as 'magic financial >crutch'. Just to be clear, I was describing what I believe to be Margaret Thatcher's views, when she made her much misquoted statements about "society". That was many years ago, and I don't necessarily agree with the philosophy either then, or now. But I do feel that if you are going to criticise someone, the least you can do first is properly understand what it is you are criticising. Meanwhile, I spend quite a lot of my time working for various charitable ventures which are in a very real sense "society's" manifestation of the philanthropic "Fairy Godmother", or to use your words "a redistributive measure". However, the donors in this case are giving voluntary, and it's matter of plain fact that many redistributive measures are forced unwillingly upon the wider public. That's what "politicians in power" (or what we call "Government") spends much of its time doing. For example, Margaret Thatcher is famous for a failed attempt to redistribute local property taxation from a basis of per-dollar-value of your property to a per-adult-resident in the property. > I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got >themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived >ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current >mechanisms were failing their collective citizens? Of course, I posed that rhetorical question because the overwhelming feeling I get from most lists like this is that Government intervention is not welcome when it comes particularly to meddling with content on the Internet (although some people are happier for Governments to intervene to break up large monopolistic infrastructure providers). -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From aizu at anr.org Fri Jan 8 08:09:47 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 22:09:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] DPI technology and regulatory move In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Roland, Thank you very much for quite informative reference. I will read them and learn more. best, izumi 2010/1/8 Roland Perry : > In message , at > 08:45:02 on Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Izumi AIZU writes >> >> Do you know how current DPI technology works in some detail? >> One target is, of course, Phorm, as they intend to start business >> in Korea and eventually in Japan. Yet under the "NDA" the vendors >> (ISPs) are quiet about how they use the technology without >> interfering the privacy. There is a plan that they will start business >> in Korea, after giving up in UK and US market, at least for the >> time being. >> >> If you know any bit of info, or source/reference, or expert, that >> will be great > > http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2008/04/04/the-phorm-webwise-system/ > > Is a great deal of information, written by my friend, and technical expert, > Dr Richard Clayton. > -- > 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 > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Fri Jan 8 08:10:48 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 22:10:48 +0900 Subject: [governance] DPI technology and regulatory move In-Reply-To: <4B46FEFB.5010406@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <4B46FEFB.5010406@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: Ralf, This is quite helpful. It may be far more than my brain capacity can absorb ;-), but will do my best. I plan to report back as we progress the study in Japan. izumi 2010/1/8 Ralf Bendrath : > Izumi AIZU schrieb: > >> I got involved in a study group on DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) >> and behavioral targeting advertising (and its policy issues) with ISP, >> Ad agency layers, and our government as observer in Japan. > > Interesting. I thought DPI-based advertizing was almost dead after Phorm > ceased its operations in the US and the UK. > >> Do you know how current DPI technology works in some detail? >> One target is, of course, Phorm, > > There is a detailed analysis of the Phorm system from FIPR: > Clayton, Richard. 2008. "The Phorm "Webwise" System." Cambridge: > Cambridge University Computer Lab, > http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2008/04/04/the-phorm-webwise-system/. > > In general, DPI normally works with "configurable computing" (FPGA or > CPLD) instead of von-Neumann-machines, because of the high speeds > required for processing the data. > > The interesting parameters are: > 1) speed of throughput (bandwidth to be inspected) > 2) number of policy rules (malware patterns, prohibited protocols, ...) > 3) search algorithm > 4) depth of inspection (newer DPI gear allows for about 35 bytes depth, > cheaper machines only look at layer-7 headers) > 5) policy decisions (dropping, copying, re-directing, inserting, > throttling, ... packets). > > While DPI has mostly been an extra box ISPs had to put into their > network, it is nowadays converging with routers and switches. Search for > "layer-7-switches" or "application-based routing". > > Further reading: > gives a fairly > good bibliography. > Other sources are at https://www.dpacket.org/ and in my ISA conference > paper from last year: > . > > For the geeks: German DPI vendor ipoque has recently open-sourced its > PACE DPI engine: > Xilinx also offers a full traffic management suite for their FPGA > machines: > > > Hope this helps, > > Ralf > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From davidcrine at aol.com Fri Jan 8 11:31:32 2010 From: davidcrine at aol.com (davidcrine at aol.com) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:31:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Web Engineering Advancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of Information Technology Message-ID: Dear Colleagues: I am inviting you to order a copy of our newly authored book or to have your library order a copy as it comes out here in January 2010. I hope that you and your colleagues or students enjoy this new 2010 book to further your development or research interests. Respectfully yours, David C. Rine Professor Emeritus Volgenau School of Information Technology and Engineering George Mason University ******************** Introducing the latest release from IGI Global: Web Engineering Advancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of Information Technology ISBN: 978-1-60566-719-5; 408 pp; January 2010 Published under Information Science Reference, an imprint of IGI Global http://www.igi-global.com/reference/details.asp?id=35224 Edited by: Ghazi I. Alkhatib, Princess Sumaya University for Technology, Jordan; David C. Rine, George Mason University, USA DESCRIPTION As countless failures in information technology and Web-based systems are caused by an incorrect understanding of knowledge sharing, an increased awareness of modern, fundamental industry concepts becomes crucial to Web and interface developers. Web Engineering Advancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of Information Technology examines integrated approaches in new dimensions of social and organizational knowledge sharing with emphasis on intelligent and personalized access. A defining collection of field advancements, this publication provides current research, applications, and techniques in testing and validation of Web systems. **************************************** “Web Engineering Advancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of Information Technology reflects on the future dimensions of Information Technology and Web Engineering (ITWE), and expands on two major themes to emphasize intelligence, provisioning, and personalization of Web engineering utilizing technologies for the advancement of ITWE applications.” - Ghazi I. Alkhatib, Applied Science University - Amman, Jordan **************************************** TOPICS COVERED Agent-enabled semantic Web GUI testing methodology Image mining Intelligent semantic Web services Object oriented software testing Pattern-oriented Web engineering Voice driven emotion recognizer mobile phone Scenario driven decision systems Software architecture analysis User interfaces for improving cell phone devices For more information about Web Engineering Advancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of Information Technology, you can view the title information sheet at http://www.igi-global.com/downloads/pdf/35224.pdf. To view the Table of Contents and a complete list of contributors online go to http://www.igi-global.com/reference/details.asp?ID=35224&v=tableOfContents. ABOUT THE EDITORS Ghazi Alkhatib is an assistant professor of software engineering at the College of Computer Science and Information Technology, Applied Science University (Amman, Jordan). In 1984, he obtained his Doctor of Business Administration from Mississippi State University in information systems with minors in computer science and accounting. Since then, he has been engaged in teaching, consulting, training, and research in the area of computer information systems in the US and gulf countries. In addition to his research interests in databases and systems analysis and design, he has published several articles and presented many papers in regional and international conferences on software processes, knowledge management, e-business, Web services, and agent software, workflow, and portal/grid computing integration with Web services. David Rine has been practicing, teaching, and researching engineered software development for over thirty years. Prior to joining George Mason University, he served in various leadership roles in the IEEE Computer Society and co-founded two of the technical committees. He joined George Mason University in 1985 and was the founding chair of the Department of Computer Science and one of the founders of the (Volgenau) School of Information Technology and Engineering. Rine has received numerous research, teaching, and service awards from computer science and engineering societies and associations, including the IEEE Centennial Award, IEEE Pioneer Award, IEEE Computer Society Meritorious Service Awards, the IEEE Computer Society Special Awards, IEEE Computer Society 50th anniversary Golden Core Award, and historical IEEE Computer Society Honor Roll and Distinguished Technical Services Awards. He has been a pioneer in graduate, undergraduate, and high school education, producing computer science texts and leading establishment of the International Advanced Placement Computer Science program for the nation's high school students, co-designer of the first computer science and engineering curriculum (1976), and the first masters in software engineering curriculum (1978). He has been an editor of a number of prestigious software-oriented journals. During his tenure, he has authored over 300 published works and has directed many PhD students. Complementing his work at GMU, he has worked on many international technology and relief projects in various countries and made many life-long international friendships. His past students are the most important record of his technical achievements. **************************************** To view the full contents of this publication, check for Web Engineering Advancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of Information Technology in your institution’s library. If you library does not currently own this title, please recommend it to your librarian. **************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From voxinternet at gmail.com Fri Jan 8 13:30:18 2010 From: voxinternet at gmail.com (Programme de recherche Vox Internet) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 19:30:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Lettre de diffusion Vox Internet II janvier 2010 Message-ID: > > Fondation Maison des Sciences de l'Homme École Normale Supérieure Lettres et Sciences Humaines Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation-École des Mines de Paris Bonjour à tous, Vous trouverez en pièce jointe la lettre de diffusion Vox Internet II de janvier 2010. Bien cordialement, l'équipe Vox Internet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: lettre de diffusion janvier 2010.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 123765 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Fri Jan 8 13:55:54 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 10:55:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Aw: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: 4B46D46E.4040403@itforchange.net Message-ID: Hurray for you Parminder! That was exactly my conncerns, when You'all were pushing for "Entiltlements" as I put it on Aug 2009 (Thu, 27th)* through the IGC**: Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles . And it is exactly why the Chinese did not want it pursued [Try providing Entiltlements (Fulfill the Rights) for 1.3 Billion Chinese and then another 1.3 Indians], Governments weren't designed to handle the load. I'll go alittle further too say, And that's why I'm calling for something new (A new Government Design). - Ref: * Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund? per Yehuda Katz [governance] Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund? http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-08/msg00325.html ** Concensus Call per Lisa Horner FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-09/msg00136.html ---____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Fri Jan 8 20:02:46 2010 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 02:02:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] DPI technology and regulatory move In-Reply-To: <4B46FEFB.5010406@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <4B46FEFB.5010406@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <4B47D5B6.9070205@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Ralf Bendrath schrieb: > There is a detailed analysis of the Phorm system from FIPR: Clayton, > Richard. 2008. "The Phorm "Webwise" System." Cambridge: Cambridge > University Computer Lab, > http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2008/04/04/the-phorm-webwise-system/. PS: There is also a prety comprehensive legal analysis of Phorm, based on Clayton's technical analysis: Bohm, Nicholas: The Phorm “Webwise” System - a Legal Analysis, Cambridge: Foundation for Information Policy Research ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jan 9 01:27:44 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:57:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <3uR9CBSqowRLFAqw@perry.co.uk> References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> <4B46D0F8.101@itforchange.net> <3uR9CBSqowRLFAqw@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B4821E0.5020008@itforchange.net> Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4B46D0F8.101 at itforchange.net>, at 12:00:16 on Fri, 8 Jan > 2010, Parminder writes > >> there is another ideology opposed to this one which believes that >> there is at present large scale social injustice which has to be >> corrected by strong positive measures for social justice - which >> often involves redistributive measures which you call as 'magic >> financial crutch'. > > Just to be clear, I was describing what I believe to be Margaret > Thatcher's views, when she made her much misquoted statements about > "society". That was many years ago, and I don't necessarily agree with > the philosophy either then, or now. But I do feel that if you are > going to criticise someone, the least you can do first is properly > understand what it is you are criticising. Mr Perry I well know what I am criticizing, or rather engaging with, so I request that you avoid snob statements. They are very disturbing, especially in the cross-cultural and geopolitical nature of this group. Do you Mr Perry ever in London, or wherever you stay, in a group pf people discussing something say to anyone - 'if you are going to criticise someone, the least you can do first is properly understand what it is you are criticising'. I am just trying to understand. Also i criticize no one, just viewpoints, unlike what you have done. So please.... You quoted Thatcher, and then explained the quote using the 'magic financial crutch' language, and then through comparison with the issues involved in US health insurance debate went on to wonder if anyone wants governments to get more involved in IG 'on the grounds that they believe the current mechanisms were failing their collective citizens'. That is a very consistent political narrative, and I do understand it completely. (In any case my statements engage with whoever holds views represented in the mentioned statements.) On the other hand (since you used the above distasteful snob language) I can say that before answering *you* should at least properly understand what who are disagreeing or agreeing with. For substantiation of this pl see below. > > Meanwhile, I spend quite a lot of my time working for various > charitable ventures which are in a very real sense "society's" > manifestation of the philanthropic "Fairy Godmother", or to use your > words "a redistributive measure". No, thats not the meaning of redistribution. In a way quite to the contrary. 'Fairy godmother' business is charity, with moral-ethical basis. Redistribution is a term of political economy, and presupposes political power as its basis. Charity is often the rich persons look at social injustice, frameworks of political power and redistribution are that of the (politically conscious) people at the wrong end. > However, the donors in this case are giving voluntary, and it's matter > of plain fact that many redistributive measures are forced unwillingly > upon the wider public. Exactly the issue, thanks for constructing it for me. All voluntary stuff is good. but that does not replace redistribution of the political kind, which is what neoliberal ideology seeks to do. So, both your position and my critique is consistent, unlike what you propose. As for 'being forced on the wider public', of course who likes to lose power and resources, while forgetting that they are often the product of unjust and exploitative social structures,and thus need corresponding corrective measures of redistribution. > > That's what "politicians in power" (or what we call "Government") Micheal has pointed to a good critique of how language is 'constructed' for ideological purposes. I see government in frameworks other that just 'politicians in power'. We work in many forms of engagement with governments, with great results. > spends much of its time doing. if you mean redistribution, that is one of the main jobs of governments. Incidentally governments in the North spend 40-50 percent of country's GDPs, a good amount of that on redistribution, while they advocate still weaker states for the South. > For example, Margaret Thatcher is famous for a failed attempt to > redistribute local property taxation from a basis of per-dollar-value > of your property to a per-adult-resident in the property. On my reading, per-dollar value property tax looks much more redistributive that per-adult resident. So Thatcher was being regressive and anti-redistribution that she is known to be, and was not in that sense not furthering redistribution, but the opposite. > >> I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments >> got themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the >> perceived ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe >> the current mechanisms were failing their collective citizens? > > Of course, I posed that rhetorical question because the overwhelming > feeling I get from most lists like this is that Government > intervention is not welcome when it comes particularly to meddling > with content on the Internet (although some people are happier for > Governments to intervene to break up large monopolistic infrastructure > providers). I too posed my response because the overwhelming feeling I get is that a few more articulate and dominant voices seem to dominant the list discussion in a manner that makes it look that civil society in general has views that are broadly neoliberal, especially in the area of IG. I proposed a vote since I am confident that the greater majority actually does not really think so. Positioning dominant views as something natural and commonsense, is the very basis of hegemony. (Now before you again react inappropriately as you did the last time, let me tell you that my critiques are political and not personal, unlike what comes out of the language you used.) Regards Parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at orange.fr Sat Jan 9 03:18:51 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 09:18:51 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B4821E0.5020008@itforchange.net> References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> <4B46D0F8.101@itforchange.net> <3uR9CBSqowRLFAqw@perry.co.uk> <4B4821E0.5020008@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <21073399.440349.1263025131871.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j06> Dear Parminder and all Once more you enlighten the debate with a clear position I strongly support. Therefore, many thanks to you for beeing watchful on this CS list. Neoliberal positions, as they are frequently expressed here denying the government its involvment in an as "public affair" as Internet governance, are paradoxal (even  inconsistent) when one considers the billions dollars and euros the democratic governments have just spent for saving the banking system after the neolib disaster.  Of course, governement shouldn't be given "exclusive power", even in our democracies. For this reason, CS should be the watchdog for preventing people from any deviance (of their government), or at least for informing them on the threatening dangers. Moreover, in many of our democracies CS partners with public authorities at local and/or natinal level in a certain number of domains, even IG. This also happens in France, although with criticisms and, in some cases, even  a clear opposition (e.g. in download control and the so-called "three strikes" law). All the best Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 09/01/10 07:28 > De : "Parminder" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Roland Perry" , "'Research and Advocacy Team'" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality > > > > > Roland Perry wrote: > > In message <4B46D0F8.101 at itforchange.net>, at 12:00:16 on Fri, 8 Jan > > 2010, Parminder writes > > > >> there is another ideology opposed to this one which believes that > >> there is at present large scale social injustice which has to be > >> corrected by strong positive measures for social justice - which > >> often involves redistributive measures which you call as 'magic > >> financial crutch'. > > > > Just to be clear, I was describing what I believe to be Margaret > > Thatcher's views, when she made her much misquoted statements about > > "society". That was many years ago, and I don't necessarily agree with > > the philosophy either then, or now. But I do feel that if you are > > going to criticise someone, the least you can do first is properly > > understand what it is you are criticising. > Mr Perry > > I well know what I am criticizing, or rather engaging with, so I request > that you avoid snob statements. They are very disturbing, especially in > the cross-cultural and geopolitical nature of this group. Do you Mr > Perry ever in London, or wherever you stay, in a group pf people > discussing something say to anyone - 'if you are going to criticise > someone, the least you can do first is properly understand what it is > you are criticising'. I am just trying to understand. Also i criticize > no one, just viewpoints, unlike what you have done. So please.... > > You quoted Thatcher, and then explained the quote using the 'magic > financial crutch' language, and then through comparison with the issues > involved in US health insurance debate went on to wonder if anyone > wants governments to get more involved in IG 'on the grounds that they > believe the current mechanisms were failing their collective citizens'. > That is a very consistent political narrative, and I do understand it > completely. (In any case my statements engage with whoever holds views > represented in the mentioned statements.) On the other hand (since you > used the above distasteful snob language) I can say that before > answering *you* should at least properly understand what who are > disagreeing or agreeing with. For substantiation of this pl see below. > > > > > Meanwhile, I spend quite a lot of my time working for various > > charitable ventures which are in a very real sense "society's" > > manifestation of the philanthropic "Fairy Godmother", or to use your > > words "a redistributive measure". > No, thats not the meaning of redistribution. In a way quite to the > contrary. 'Fairy godmother' business is charity, with moral-ethical > basis. Redistribution is a term of political economy, and presupposes > political power as its basis. Charity is often the rich persons look at > social injustice, frameworks of political power and redistribution are > that of the (politically conscious) people at the wrong end. > > > > However, the donors in this case are giving voluntary, and it's matter > > of plain fact that many redistributive measures are forced unwillingly > > upon the wider public. > Exactly the issue, thanks for constructing it for me. All voluntary > stuff is good. but that does not replace redistribution of the political > kind, which is what neoliberal ideology seeks to do. So, both your > position and my critique is consistent, unlike what you propose. > > > As for 'being forced on the wider public', of course who likes to lose > power and resources, while forgetting that they are often the product of > unjust and exploitative social structures,and thus need corresponding > corrective measures of redistribution. > > > > > That's what "politicians in power" (or what we call "Government") > Micheal has pointed to a good critique of how language is 'constructed' > for ideological purposes. I see government in frameworks other that just > 'politicians in power'. We work in many forms of engagement with > governments, with great results. > > spends much of its time doing. > if you mean redistribution, that is one of the main jobs of governments. > Incidentally governments in the North spend 40-50 percent of country's > GDPs, a good amount of that on redistribution, while they advocate still > weaker states for the South. > > > For example, Margaret Thatcher is famous for a failed attempt to > > redistribute local property taxation from a basis of per-dollar-value > > of your property to a per-adult-resident in the property. > On my reading, per-dollar value property tax looks much more > redistributive that per-adult resident. So Thatcher was being regressive > and anti-redistribution that she is known to be, and was not in that > sense not furthering redistribution, but the opposite. > > > >> I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments > >> got themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the > >> perceived ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe > >> the current mechanisms were failing their collective citizens? > > > > Of course, I posed that rhetorical question because the overwhelming > > feeling I get from most lists like this is that Government > > intervention is not welcome when it comes particularly to meddling > > with content on the Internet (although some people are happier for > > Governments to intervene to break up large monopolistic infrastructure > > providers). > I too posed my response because the overwhelming feeling I get is that a > few more articulate and dominant voices seem to dominant the list > discussion in a manner that makes it look that civil society in general > has views that are broadly neoliberal, especially in the area of IG. I > proposed a vote since I am confident that the greater majority actually > does not really think so. Positioning dominant views as something > natural and commonsense, is the very basis of hegemony. (Now before you > again react inappropriately as you did the last time, let me tell you > that my critiques are political and not personal, unlike what comes out > of the language you used.) > > Regards > > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Jan 9 04:30:55 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 09:30:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B4821E0.5020008@itforchange.net> References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> <4B46D0F8.101@itforchange.net> <3uR9CBSqowRLFAqw@perry.co.uk> <4B4821E0.5020008@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3EbdovrPzESLFAQP@perry.co.uk> In message <4B4821E0.5020008 at itforchange.net>, at 11:57:44 on Sat, 9 Jan 2010, Parminder writes > >Roland Perry wrote: >> In message <4B46D0F8.101 at itforchange.net>, at 12:00:16 on Fri, 8 Jan >>2010, Parminder writes >> >>> there is another ideology opposed to this one which believes that >>>there is at present large scale social injustice which has to be >>>corrected by strong positive measures for social justice - which >>>often involves redistributive measures which you call as 'magic >>>financial crutch'. >> >> Just to be clear, I was describing what I believe to be Margaret >>Thatcher's views, when she made her much misquoted statements about >>"society". That was many years ago, and I don't necessarily agree with >>the philosophy either then, or now. But I do feel that if you are >>going to criticise someone, the least you can do first is properly >>understand what it is you are criticising. >Mr Perry > >I well know what I am criticizing, or rather engaging with, so I >request that you avoid snob statements. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I'd said "...the least *one* can do..." etc. It wasn't a comment on your position. >You quoted Thatcher, and then explained the quote using the 'magic >financial crutch' language, Because that was what she was referring to. As I also explained, that's nothing to do with my personal views on the matter, just a clarification of her expression "no such thing as society". >> Meanwhile, I spend quite a lot of my time working for various >>charitable ventures which are in a very real sense "society's" >>manifestation of the philanthropic "Fairy Godmother", or to use your >>words "a redistributive measure". >No, thats not the meaning of redistribution. In a way quite to the >contrary. I'll try to find a different word for it in future. >Now before you again react inappropriately as you did the last time, >let me tell you that my critiques are political and not personal, >unlike what comes out of the language you used.) I'm sorry if you took my remarks personally, it was not intended. Indeed I wasn't trying to start a debate about politics at all. So I'll leave it there. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Jan 9 19:53:22 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 19:53:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Appeals Court Warm to Comcast in Fight Against FCC - The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times In-Reply-To: <9A5769A1-8B77-45BE-8EDC-80BF48C0599B@farber.net> References: <9A5769A1-8B77-45BE-8EDC-80BF48C0599B@farber.net> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4B1@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> FYI Not that I'm defending Comcast's actions which precipitated the case. But my forecast remains the same: the legal wrangling over net neutrality will likely begin - after more delay - with a scolding and slap on the wrist of the FCC for trying to enforce Internet principles without having following the rules of the Admin Procedures Act to define the principles. That's a big no-no in US law, which the current neutrality rule-making proceeding in theory would correct, but even if the FCC succeeds this time it can't be applied to a case from years earlier. Anyway, a step forward, then 2 (or 3) steps back remains my political/legal forecast. Note last line from court staffer saying 'see you in a couple years'....which is faster than I predict we will get any clarity in this area : ( Looking on the bright side: we/the IGF have plenty of time to define Internet rights and principles, since noone else has done a good job of it already. In my opinion. _______________________________________ From: David Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 8:06 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Appeals Court Warm to Comcast in Fight Against FCC - The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/01/appeals-court-warm-to-comcast-in-fight-against-fcc.html Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] [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 From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Jan 10 20:06:56 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:06:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN no. 37 NAIROBI | 7-12 March 2010 Message-ID: Time is running short for ICANN no. 37 NAIROBI | 7-12 March 2010 http://nbo.icann.org/ Any IGC / CPSR Mailist Members going ? Any Statements or Paper Presentaions? - ALAC Scheadule: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_nairobi_schedule - AFRALO-ICANN At Large Africa https://st.icann.org/afralo/index.cgi?action=recent_changes - EURALO-ICANN At Large Europe https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?action=recent_changes - ASIAPAC-ICANN At Large Asia Pacific https://st.icann.org/asiapac/index.cgi?action=recent_changes - NARALO-ICANN At Large North America https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?action=recent_changes - LAC RALO https://st.icann.org/lacralo/index.cgi?action=recent_changes - At Large Advisory Committee https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?action=recent_changes - GNSO Council Workspace https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?action=recent_changes -- Diplo Internet Governance.org http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/video/icann-nairobi --- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jan 11 06:44:20 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:14:20 -0430 Subject: [governance] Deadline for written Contributions to IGF Message-ID: <4B4B0F14.5030601@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Mon Jan 11 10:01:10 2010 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:01:10 -0300 Subject: [governance] Deadline for written Contributions to IGF In-Reply-To: <4B4B0F14.5030601@gmail.com> References: <4B4B0F14.5030601@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ca4162f1001110701i65fc7351ld62f3917325ac971@mail.gmail.com> Hi Ginger, and all. With short time, there go some ideas to include, excuse me they go in spanish, I expect Ginger can make a perfect translation :): - el proceso preparatorio debería incluir soporte, asistencia para producir procesos participativos que permitan sensibilizar a más actores sociales y que faciliten la producción de aportes (documentos, investigaciones, preparación de workshops, etc.) que expresen las necesidades y posturas de los países y regiones menos representadas, a las que más difícil les resulta trasladarse, y en las que las problemáticas relativas a la IG están menos difundidas y la sociedad menos informada e involucrada en estos procesos. Esta idea implica, por ejemplo: mayor financiamiento para investigaciones, mayor apoyo financiero y de todo tipo para procesos preparatorios e IGF regionales y nacionales, apoyo a procesos de difusión, sensibilización y producción de aportes durante toda la etapa preparatoria, mayor apoyo y profundización de los servicios de participación remota durante los IGF -nacionales, regionales, y global- como así también de las reuniones preparatorias. - En cuanto al post-IGF, implica también la asistencia, financiamiento etc. para procesos de gestión de información y conocimiento de lo producido durante el IGF, que permitan optimizar el aprovechamiento, y por lo tanto el impacto, de los contenidos y los procesos, en las regiones y países menos desarrollados, donde el involucramiento aún no es suficiente. - Durante el IGF y reuniones preparatorias, mayor soporte y perfeccionamiento de los mecanismos de participación remota, con énfasis en el proceso de preparación de dichos procesos en las regiones y países con menor posibilidad de participación. Hasta aquí lo que puedo aportar, de manera general, en este momento. Espero sea de utilidad. Un abrazo, Roxana 2010/1/11 Ginger Paque > Hello everyone, > I hope everyone is back and energetic for a productive (happy, healthy) > 2010. > > Jeremy is still collating his efforts towards IGF reform, and will report > as soon as he can. > > On less complex topics, is there interest in a short IGC written > contribution, for example: > 1. supporting rights and principles as an overarching theme > 2. workshop structure to include a remote participation moderator and some > kind of pre-event training for remote participation. > > Can we agree on a short concrete written contribution, or is it too short a > time? Any thoughts? > > Best, > Ginger > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From amedinagomez at gmail.com Mon Jan 11 10:07:39 2010 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:07:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] Deadline for written Contributions to IGF In-Reply-To: <4ca4162f1001110701i65fc7351ld62f3917325ac971@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B4B0F14.5030601@gmail.com> <4ca4162f1001110701i65fc7351ld62f3917325ac971@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2bd2431a1001110707x6f0d9c8atb3aff7f140564a45@mail.gmail.com> Totalmente de acuerdo con Roxana. Antonio Medina Gomez Presidente Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet. ACUI IGF Colombia presidencia at acui.org.co amedinagomez at gmail.com http://www.acui.org.co El 11 de enero de 2010 10:01, Roxana Goldstein escribió: > Hi Ginger, and all. > With short time, there go some ideas to include, excuse me they go in > spanish, I expect Ginger can make a perfect translation :): > > - el proceso preparatorio debería incluir soporte, asistencia para producir > procesos participativos que permitan sensibilizar a más actores sociales y > que faciliten la producción de aportes (documentos, investigaciones, > preparación de workshops, etc.) que expresen las necesidades y posturas de > los países y regiones menos representadas, a las que más difícil les resulta > trasladarse, y en las que las problemáticas relativas a la IG están menos > difundidas y la sociedad menos informada e involucrada en estos procesos. > Esta idea implica, por ejemplo: mayor financiamiento para investigaciones, > mayor apoyo financiero y de todo tipo para procesos preparatorios e IGF > regionales y nacionales, apoyo a procesos de difusión, sensibilización y > producción de aportes durante toda la etapa preparatoria, mayor apoyo y > profundización de los servicios de participación remota durante los IGF > -nacionales, regionales, y global- como así también de las reuniones > preparatorias. > > - En cuanto al post-IGF, implica también la asistencia, financiamiento etc. > para procesos de gestión de información y conocimiento de lo producido > durante el IGF, que permitan optimizar el aprovechamiento, y por lo tanto el > impacto, de los contenidos y los procesos, en las regiones y países menos > desarrollados, donde el involucramiento aún no es suficiente. > > - Durante el IGF y reuniones preparatorias, mayor soporte y > perfeccionamiento de los mecanismos de participación remota, con énfasis en > el proceso de preparación de dichos procesos en las regiones y países con > menor posibilidad de participación. > > Hasta aquí lo que puedo aportar, de manera general, en este momento. Espero > sea de utilidad. > > Un abrazo, > Roxana > > > > > 2010/1/11 Ginger Paque > >> Hello everyone, >> I hope everyone is back and energetic for a productive (happy, healthy) >> 2010. >> >> Jeremy is still collating his efforts towards IGF reform, and will report >> as soon as he can. >> >> On less complex topics, is there interest in a short IGC written >> contribution, for example: >> 1. supporting rights and principles as an overarching theme >> 2. workshop structure to include a remote participation moderator and some >> kind of pre-event training for remote participation. >> >> Can we agree on a short concrete written contribution, or is it too short >> a time? Any thoughts? >> >> Best, >> Ginger >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jan 11 10:22:41 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:52:41 -0430 Subject: [governance] Deadline for written Contributions to IGF In-Reply-To: <4ca4162f1001110701i65fc7351ld62f3917325ac971@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B4B0F14.5030601@gmail.com> <4ca4162f1001110701i65fc7351ld62f3917325ac971@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B4B4241.8050508@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 jfcallo at isocperu.org Mon Jan 11 14:43:27 2010 From: jfcallo at isocperu.org (jfcallo at isocperu.org) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:43:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] Interesante que se diga y se inscriba en nuestro idioma In-Reply-To: <4ca4162f1001110701i65fc7351ld62f3917325ac971@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B4B0F14.5030601@gmail.com> <4ca4162f1001110701i65fc7351ld62f3917325ac971@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20100111144327.sedj63a2f44wg8oc@www.isocperu.org> Respetable Roxana Goldstein: Previo saludo, es de sumo agrado leer una propuesta en español. Por lo general, algunos, como es mi caso, no escribo un buen ingles y se presta a confusiones. De hecho que el IGF, debe extender o ampliar su marco de accion. Por ejemplo tener uno a dos corresponsales por pais, de manera que se tenga un panorama amplio y real de cada pais, region o lugar. Lo explique en la lista de correos de ISOC, institucion a la que pertenesco. No basta con que los latinoamericanos tengamos un representante en el directorio de una u otra organizacion, pues muchas veces solo exponen su punto particular u obsesivamente subjetivo. En mi sencillo parecer, se requiere de una mayor representatividad y que en los Foros o Grandes reuniones se de oportunidad a otros actores, siempre los mismos año tras año; esta bien que representen a su organizacion pero con una mayor participacion y puntos de vista, estaremos no solo masificando Internet, sino que se de buen uso para la inclusion de diversas personas, incluyendo las personas con discapacidad, de lo contrario se aumentara el analfabestimo digital y su respectiva brecha y los seminarios y convenciones terminaran siendo viajes turisticos y no su razon principal de ser: contribuir a un mejor manejo y conocimiento de Internet. Gracias Atentamente Jose F. Callo Romero Secretario ISOC Peru ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 11 16:00:22 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:00:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Aw: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <108229.40195.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Faulty logic Yehuda.   Mere numbers and size are not reasons large governments do not do things.  Perhaps you would do yourself a favor and study bureaucrats. --- On Fri, 1/8/10, Yehuda Katz wrote: From: Yehuda Katz Subject: Aw: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, January 8, 2010, 6:55 PM Hurray for you Parminder! That was exactly my conncerns, when You'all were pushing for "Entiltlements" as I put it on Aug 2009 (Thu, 27th)*  through the IGC**: Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles . And it is exactly why the Chinese did not want it pursued [Try providing Entiltlements (Fulfill the Rights) for 1.3 Billion Chinese and then another 1.3 Indians], Governments weren't designed to handle the load. I'll go alittle further too say, And that's why I'm calling for something new (A new Government Design). - Ref: *  Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund? per Yehuda Katz [governance] Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund? http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-08/msg00325.html ** Concensus Call per Lisa Horner FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-09/msg00136.html ---____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 11 16:07:13 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:07:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <3uR9CBSqowRLFAqw@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <58014.1157.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Well done Roland  -- after all the posts we finally have a beginning point: --- On Fri, 1/8/10, Roland Perry wrote: Of course, I posed that rhetorical question because the overwhelming feeling I get from most lists like this is that Government intervention is not welcome when it comes particularly to meddling with content on the Internet (although some people are happier for Governments to intervene to break up large monopolistic infrastructure providers). -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________   Of course there are losers like me that do not have a bent.  We like to apply the principals/les but conclude on individual case by case. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 11 16:08:44 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:08:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Neutrality Message-ID: <954355.73231.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Quotes are to numerous to help bolster this point;   If neutrality simply means doing nothing -- then it is not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 11 16:43:34 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:43:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Deadline for written Contributions to IGF In-Reply-To: <4B4B0F14.5030601@gmail.com> Message-ID: <531907.61870.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Ginger, (I am just about rested up from western holidays -- Only to start up again with Chuc Mung Nam Moi -- and Tet)   I would like to see a set of ideals that we would propose for every occassion that would require a paper contribution.  The occassions and sponsors and subject de jour can change but our overriding ideals should always be put forth:::::  on the practical side we would always be ready and always plug (shamelessly I hope;-) our ideals.   1. Seeking the highest levels of participation and contribution.   2. Consistency with the notion of individual rights.   3. Openness and transparency.   4. Inclusive as is reasonable.   5. As bottom up as is reliable.   These are not particular goals or principles. They are just what we have seen time and time again help to prevent bad governance. In keeping with good mandate, we are best serving the Internet, and non-internet community by reminding others of these good ideas. Of course there are many more, but this can encompass all and is never repeated enough. --- On Mon, 1/11/10, Ginger Paque wrote: From: Ginger Paque Subject: [governance] Deadline for written Contributions to IGF To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" , "Jeremy Malcolm" Date: Monday, January 11, 2010, 11:44 AM Hello everyone, I hope everyone is back and energetic for a productive (happy, healthy) 2010. Jeremy is still collating his efforts towards IGF reform, and will report as soon as he can. On less complex topics, is there interest in a short IGC written contribution, for example: 1. supporting rights and principles as an overarching theme 2. workshop structure to include a remote participation moderator and some kind of pre-event training for remote participation. Can we agree on a short concrete written contribution, or is it too short a time? Any thoughts? Best, Ginger -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Jan 11 21:14:47 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:14:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Aw: Re: Aw: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net In-Reply-To: 108229.40195.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com Message-ID: I beg to differ Eric, Perhapes I should have posted Michael & Rolands comments together (below here), so that you may follow the logic. ..."Roland Perry wrote, à la Michael Gurstein: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-01/msg00049.html In message , at 05:28:08 on Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Michael Gurstein writes >Well, as Margaret Thatcher (in)famously said at one point, "there is no >society" (and thus presumably no "social/public interest") and then she and >her accolytes proceeded to ensure through policy and process that her wish >was made flesh to the continuing detriment of all. "I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society." So it's nothing to do with "social/public interest", but whether or not people can expect a magic financial crutch to support them in their adversity. It's almost exactly the same set of issues as the current USA healthcare debate. I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current mechanisms were failing their collective citizens? ... - ..."Roland Perry wrote: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-01/msg00055.html ... That's a misrepresentation of the Thatcherite doctrine. The UK continued with policies that were much more socialist than many other countries (Nationalised Health and Education, widespread welfare system etc). Her statement, which is basically "There's no such thing as a Disney-esque Fairy Godmother" did not deny the possibility that the State should continue to organise a very wide range of state-run benefits, and collect large amounts of taxation to fund them! ... - ..."Roland Perry wrote: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-01/msg00070.html In message <4B46D0F8.101 at itforchange.net>, at 12:00:16 on Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Parminder writes: >there is another ideology opposed to this one which believes that there is at >present large scale social injustice which has to be corrected by strong >positive measures for social justice - which often involves redistributive >measures which you call as 'magic financial crutch'. Just to be clear, I was describing what I believe to be Margaret Thatcher's views, when she made her much misquoted statements about "society". That was many years ago, and I don't necessarily agree with the philosophy either then, or now. But I do feel that if you are going to criticise someone, the least you can do first is properly understand what it is you are criticising. ..." - Just to be clear Eric, "Thatcher's Views" and any Goverment with ONE+Plus BILLION PEOPLE are going to have to venture off into the Magic Kingdom of Fairy God Mothers (or the 'Land of Bailouts & Voodoo Economics') in order to FUND the "Entitlements". And the Chinese proved my point. Roland and I are just being 'practical & pargmatic' about the economics surrounding the 'Request of Rights' this List deems to advance. If it were economically possible to do, it would have been done by now. So go ahead Eric, Fart in the Hurricane. -- ..." Eric Dierker wrote: >Faulty logic Yehuda. >Mere numbers and size are not reasons large governments do not do things. >Perhaps you would do yourself a favor and study bureaucrats. Perhapes You should study India, 'They' (Bureaucrats) are going to look you in the face, shake their heads, ah-ha, ah-ha,... and not do a damn thing about it, Because there is no way to do it. They don't have the structure or the economic resources to Fulfill the Rights that you so elequently impose upon them, by the swift touch of your electronic keyboard, sharp tongue, and first-world station in life. Adios Amigo ;-) --- On Fri, 1/8/10, Yehuda Katz wrote: From: Yehuda Katz Subject: Aw: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, January 8, 2010, 6:55 PM >> >>Hurray for you Parminder! >> >>That was exactly my conncerns, when You'all were pushing for "Entiltlements" as >>I put it on Aug 2009 (Thu, 27th)* through the IGC**: Statement by IGC >>supporting rights and principles . >> >>And it is exactly why the Chinese did not want it pursued [Try providing >>Entiltlements (Fulfill the Rights) for 1.3 Billion Chinese and then another 1.3 >>Indians], Governments weren't designed to handle the load. >> >>I'll go alittle further too say, And that's why I'm calling for something new >>(A new Government Design). - Ref: * Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund? per Yehuda Katz [governance] Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund? http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-08/msg00325.html ** Concensus Call per Lisa Horner FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-09/msg00136.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 sebastien.bachollet at free.fr Tue Jan 12 00:39:08 2010 From: sebastien.bachollet at free.fr (=?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien_Bachollet?=) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 06:39:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request for Comments Message-ID: <00b501ca9349$90570c40$b10524c0$@bachollet@free.fr> Dear all, It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory committee of ICANN. Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in the messages bellow). Please forward it to you pears. All the best Chers amis, Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de l'Icann. Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages ci-dessous). Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. Amicalement Estimado todos, Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. Gracias Sébastien Bachollet Président d'honneur - Isoc France sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr * La version française est ci-dessous *La versión española está abajo Dear All, At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group with the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for the selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for wide-spread comment early in January 2010. Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. The ‘portal page’ is available at: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle will be sent shortly). Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make your comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward this message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on the Director White Paper as widely as possible. Regards, ** Cher tous, À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe de la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et franc pour la revue. Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire aux pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter leurs observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel de la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les 27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de l'ONU. Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki utilisant le " ; comment" ; bouton. On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre à ce message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme possible. Cordialment, ** Estimado todos, En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN que se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y el franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los próximos días. El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en las páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto al director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en el proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero de 2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando el " comment" botón. Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a este mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea posible. Respetos, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ABS White Paper_FINAL_11012011_EN.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 335437 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Call for community Comment on ABS White Paper_FR_final.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 207549 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00086.txt URL: From b.schombe at gmail.com Tue Jan 12 03:27:50 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:27:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Deadline for written Contributions to IGF In-Reply-To: <4ca4162f1001110701i65fc7351ld62f3917325ac971@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B4B0F14.5030601@gmail.com> <4ca4162f1001110701i65fc7351ld62f3917325ac971@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi all, I think translation is very necessary Baudouin 2010/1/11, Roxana Goldstein : > Hi Ginger, and all. > With short time, there go some ideas to include, excuse me they go in > spanish, I expect Ginger can make a perfect translation :): > > - el proceso preparatorio debería incluir soporte, asistencia para producir > procesos participativos que permitan sensibilizar a más actores sociales y > que faciliten la producción de aportes (documentos, investigaciones, > preparación de workshops, etc.) que expresen las necesidades y posturas de > los países y regiones menos representadas, a las que más difícil les resulta > trasladarse, y en las que las problemáticas relativas a la IG están menos > difundidas y la sociedad menos informada e involucrada en estos procesos. > Esta idea implica, por ejemplo: mayor financiamiento para investigaciones, > mayor apoyo financiero y de todo tipo para procesos preparatorios e IGF > regionales y nacionales, apoyo a procesos de difusión, sensibilización y > producción de aportes durante toda la etapa preparatoria, mayor apoyo y > profundización de los servicios de participación remota durante los IGF > -nacionales, regionales, y global- como así también de las reuniones > preparatorias. > > - En cuanto al post-IGF, implica también la asistencia, financiamiento etc. > para procesos de gestión de información y conocimiento de lo producido > durante el IGF, que permitan optimizar el aprovechamiento, y por lo tanto el > impacto, de los contenidos y los procesos, en las regiones y países menos > desarrollados, donde el involucramiento aún no es suficiente. > > - Durante el IGF y reuniones preparatorias, mayor soporte y > perfeccionamiento de los mecanismos de participación remota, con énfasis en > el proceso de preparación de dichos procesos en las regiones y países con > menor posibilidad de participación. > > Hasta aquí lo que puedo aportar, de manera general, en este momento. Espero > sea de utilidad. > > Un abrazo, > Roxana > > > > > 2010/1/11 Ginger Paque > >> Hello everyone, >> I hope everyone is back and energetic for a productive (happy, healthy) >> 2010. >> >> Jeremy is still collating his efforts towards IGF reform, and will report >> as soon as he can. >> >> On less complex topics, is there interest in a short IGC written >> contribution, for example: >> 1. supporting rights and principles as an overarching theme >> 2. workshop structure to include a remote participation moderator and some >> kind of pre-event training for remote participation. >> >> Can we agree on a short concrete written contribution, or is it too short >> a >> time? Any thoughts? >> >> Best, >> Ginger >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571 +243811980914 email: b.schombe at gmail.com blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble Royal, Entrée A,7e niveau. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 12 07:28:26 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:28:26 -0200 Subject: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: <00b501ca9349$90570c40$b10524c0$@bachollet@free.fr> References: <00b501ca9349$90570c40$b10524c0$@bachollet@free.fr> Message-ID: <013001ca9382$c12a8020$437f8060$@com.br> Dear all, Estimados amigos, Chers Amis Please access http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm to analyze the opportunity to join ICANN meeting in Brussels next June. Por favor vean en http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm la oportunidad de participar en la conferencia de ICANN en Bruselas el próximo Junio Svp accès http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm pour analyser l'occasion de joindre la réunion d'ICANN à Bruxelles juin prochain. Thank you for your attention / Gracias por su atención / Merci pour votre attention Vanda Scartezini Fellowship Program Committee ICANN Board – ALAC Liaison www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com -----Original Message----- From: Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at free.fr] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:39 AM To: Sébastien Bachollet Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request for Comments Dear all, It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory committee of ICANN. Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in the messages bellow). Please forward it to you pears. All the best Chers amis, Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de l'Icann. Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages ci-dessous). Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. Amicalement Estimado todos, Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. Gracias Sébastien Bachollet Président d'honneur - Isoc France sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr * La version française est ci-dessous *La versión española está abajo Dear All, At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group with the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for the selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for wide-spread comment early in January 2010. Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. The ‘portal page’ is available at: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle will be sent shortly). Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make your comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward this message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on the Director White Paper as widely as possible. Regards, ** Cher tous, À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe de la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et franc pour la revue. Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire aux pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter leurs observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel de la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les 27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de l'ONU. Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki utilisant le " ; comment" ; bouton. On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre à ce message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme possible. Cordialment, ** Estimado todos, En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN que se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y el franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los próximos días. El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en las páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto al director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en el proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero de 2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando el " comment" botón. Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a este mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea posible. Respetos, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 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 correia.rui at gmail.com Tue Jan 12 07:48:32 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:48:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: <013001ca9382$c12a8020$437f8060$@com.br> References: <013001ca9382$c12a8020$437f8060$@com.br> Message-ID: [Vanda - this is not directed at you; I can see it comes from the PR] I wonder who came up with this idiotic use o the word "fellowship" when referring to what is in fact a sponsorship to cover travel and accommodation (and "a stipend"). Then just to crown it, those who get the fellowships are called "alumni"! Must come from the same bright linguist who decided it was fine to use the word "itinerary" for an event programme! "Itinerary > Day 1 > Day 2" etc, all in the same venue! Rui 2010/1/12 Vanda UOL : > Dear all, Estimados amigos, Chers Amis > > > > Please access >   http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm  to > analyze the opportunity to join ICANN meeting in Brussels next June. > > > > Por favor vean en > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm la > oportunidad de participar en la conferencia de ICANN en Bruselas el próximo > Junio > > > > Svp accès  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm >  pour analyser l'occasion de joindre la réunion d'ICANN à Bruxelles juin > prochain. > > > > > > Thank you for your attention / Gracias por su atención / Merci pour votre > attention > > > > > > Vanda Scartezini > > Fellowship Program Committee > > ICANN Board – ALAC Liaison > > www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at free.fr] > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:39 AM > To: Sébastien Bachollet > Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request for > Comments > > > > Dear all, > > It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory > committee of ICANN. > > Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in the > messages bellow). > > Please forward it to you pears. > > All the best > > > > Chers amis, > > Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de l'Icann. > > Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les > possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages > ci-dessous). > > Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. > > Amicalement > > > > Estimado todos, > > Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. > > Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. > > Gracias > > > > Sébastien Bachollet > > Président d'honneur - Isoc France > > sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr > > www.egeni.org > > www.isoc.fr > > > > * La version française est ci-dessous > > > > *La versión española está abajo > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group with > the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for the > selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for > wide-spread comment early in January 2010. > > > > > > > > Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for > review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. > > > > > > > > The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. The > ‘portal page’ is available at: > > > > https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. > > > > > > > > All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the > Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large > Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle will > be sent shortly). > > > > > > > > Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make your > comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. > > > > > > > > It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward this > message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on the > Director White Paper as widely as possible. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > ** > > > > Cher tous, > > > > > > > > À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe de > la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le > choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le > commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. > > > > > > > > Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et franc > pour la revue.  Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. > > > > > > > > Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire aux > pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : > > https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. > > > > > > > > Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter leurs > observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel de > la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les > > 27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). > > > > > > > > Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de l'ONU. > > Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki utilisant > le " ; comment" ; bouton. > > > > > > > > On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre à ce > message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des > commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme possible. > > > > > > > > Cordialment, > > > > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > Estimado todos, > > > > > > > > En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un > pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso > propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN que > se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. > > > > > > > > Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y el > franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los > próximos días. > > > > > > > > El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en las > páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: > > https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. > > > > > > > > Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto al > director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en el > proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero de > 2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). > > > > > > > > Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. > > Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando el > " comment" botón. > > > > > > > > Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a este > mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los > comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea > posible. > > > > > > > > Respetos, > > > > > > > > Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, > Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff > > > > email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org > > website: www.atlarge.icann.org > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Tue Jan 12 07:56:03 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:56:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: References: <013001ca9382$c12a8020$437f8060$@com.br> Message-ID: And it is announced in three languages, but once you click through, it is only in English! Way to go, ICANN! That surely shows dedication to your pledges of representativeness! Rui 2010/1/12 Rui Correia : > [Vanda - this is not directed at you; I can see it comes from the PR] > > I wonder who came up with this idiotic use o the word "fellowship" > when referring to what is in fact a sponsorship to cover travel and > accommodation (and "a stipend"). Then just to crown it, those who get > the fellowships are called "alumni"! > > Must come from the same bright linguist who decided it was fine to use > the word "itinerary" for an event programme! "Itinerary > Day 1 > Day > 2" etc, all in the same venue! > > Rui > > > > 2010/1/12 Vanda UOL : >> Dear all, Estimados amigos, Chers Amis >> >> >> >> Please access >>   http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm  to >> analyze the opportunity to join ICANN meeting in Brussels next June. >> >> >> >> Por favor vean en >> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm la >> oportunidad de participar en la conferencia de ICANN en Bruselas el próximo >> Junio >> >> >> >> Svp accès  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm >>  pour analyser l'occasion de joindre la réunion d'ICANN à Bruxelles juin >> prochain. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you for your attention / Gracias por su atención / Merci pour votre >> attention >> >> >> >> >> >> Vanda Scartezini >> >> Fellowship Program Committee >> >> ICANN Board – ALAC Liaison >> >> www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at free.fr] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:39 AM >> To: Sébastien Bachollet >> Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request for >> Comments >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory >> committee of ICANN. >> >> Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in the >> messages bellow). >> >> Please forward it to you pears. >> >> All the best >> >> >> >> Chers amis, >> >> Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de l'Icann. >> >> Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les >> possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages >> ci-dessous). >> >> Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. >> >> Amicalement >> >> >> >> Estimado todos, >> >> Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. >> >> Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. >> >> Gracias >> >> >> >> Sébastien Bachollet >> >> Président d'honneur - Isoc France >> >> sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr >> >> www.egeni.org >> >> www.isoc.fr >> >> >> >> * La version française est ci-dessous >> >> >> >> *La versión española está abajo >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group with >> the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for the >> selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for >> wide-spread comment early in January 2010. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for >> review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. The >> ‘portal page’ is available at: >> >> >> >> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the >> Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large >> Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle will >> be sent shortly). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make your >> comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward this >> message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on the >> Director White Paper as widely as possible. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ** >> >> >> >> Cher tous, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe de >> la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le >> choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le >> commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et franc >> pour la revue.  Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire aux >> pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : >> >> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter leurs >> observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel de >> la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les >> >> 27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de l'ONU. >> >> Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki utilisant >> le " ; comment" ; bouton. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre à ce >> message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des >> commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme possible. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Cordialment, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ** >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Estimado todos, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un >> pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso >> propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN que >> se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y el >> franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los >> próximos días. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en las >> páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: >> >> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto al >> director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en el >> proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero de >> 2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. >> >> Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando el >> " comment" botón. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a este >> mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los >> comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea >> posible. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Respetos, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, >> Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff >> >> >> >> email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org >> >> website: www.atlarge.icann.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Tue Jan 12 08:06:36 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:06:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: References: <013001ca9382$c12a8020$437f8060$@com.br> Message-ID: I suspect the intention has been to create something more than just a travel support grant. The "fellows" are required to attend daily briefings while at the ICANN meeting and to be active in meeting sessions, write a report, show value they have taken back from the meeting. By take back, I mean something that has an input to a larger group (ccTLD, government, some community) so their participation isn't just a one-off personal benefit. At least that's my understanding. Very easy to give someone a ticket and cover their hotel costs and not put any support programmes in place, and ICANN did that for a couple of years in the early part of the decade (it had some value, but could have done more, I know a few on this list who benefited.) The Fellowship Program is trying to do something more, and has good feedback so perhaps it's working. Adam >[Vanda - this is not directed at you; I can see it comes from the PR] > >I wonder who came up with this idiotic use o the word "fellowship" >when referring to what is in fact a sponsorship to cover travel and >accommodation (and "a stipend"). Then just to crown it, those who get >the fellowships are called "alumni"! > >Must come from the same bright linguist who decided it was fine to use >the word "itinerary" for an event programme! "Itinerary > Day 1 > Day >2" etc, all in the same venue! > >Rui > > > >2010/1/12 Vanda UOL : >> Dear all, Estimados amigos, Chers Amis >> >> >> >> Please access > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm to >> analyze the opportunity to join ICANN meeting in Brussels next June. >> >> >> >> Por favor vean en >> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm la >> oportunidad de participar en la conferencia de ICANN en Bruselas el próximo >> Junio >> >> >> >> Svp accès http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm >> pour analyser l'occasion de joindre la réunion d'ICANN à Bruxelles juin >> prochain. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you for your attention / Gracias por su atención / Merci pour votre >> attention >> >> >> >> >> >> Vanda Scartezini >> >> Fellowship Program Committee >> >> ICANN Board ­ ALAC Liaison >> >> www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at free.fr] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:39 AM >> To: Sébastien Bachollet >> Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request for >> Comments >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory >> committee of ICANN. >> >> Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in the >> messages bellow). >> >> Please forward it to you pears. >> >> All the best >> >> >> >> Chers amis, >> >> Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de l'Icann. >> >> Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les >> possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages >> ci-dessous). >> >> Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. >> >> Amicalement >> >> >> >> Estimado todos, >> >> Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. >> >> Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. >> >> Gracias >> >> >> >> Sébastien Bachollet >> >> Président d'honneur - Isoc France >> >> sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr >> >> www.egeni.org >> >> www.isoc.fr >> >> >> >> * La version française est ci-dessous >> >> >> >> *La versión española está abajo >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group with >> the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for the >> selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for >> wide-spread comment early in January 2010. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for >> review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. The > > Œportal page¹ is available at: >> >> >> >> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the >> Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large >> Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle will >> be sent shortly). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make your >> comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward this >> message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on the >> Director White Paper as widely as possible. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ** >> >> >> >> Cher tous, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe de >> la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le >> choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le >> commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et franc >> pour la revue. Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire aux >> pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : >> >> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter leurs >> observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel de >> la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les >> >> 27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de l'ONU. >> >> Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki utilisant >> le " ; comment" ; bouton. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre à ce >> message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des >> commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme possible. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Cordialment, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ** >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Estimado todos, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un >> pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso >> propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN que >> se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y el >> franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los >> próximos días. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en las >> páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: >> >> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto al >> director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en el >> proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero de >> 2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. >> >> Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando el >> " comment" botón. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a este >> mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los >> comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea >> posible. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Respetos, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, >> Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff >> >> >> >> email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org >> >> website: www.atlarge.icann.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > >-- >________________________________________________ > > >Rui Correia >Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >Angola Liaison Consultant >2 Cutten St >Horison >Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >South Africa >Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >_______________ >áâãçéêíóôõúç >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Tue Jan 12 08:30:48 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:30:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: References: <013001ca9382$c12a8020$437f8060$@com.br> Message-ID: Adam, Fair enough. However, and using an example I was personally involved with - at Highway Africa (largest annual gathering of journalists from across Africa), a similar procedure is used, with people applying to attend with cost covered and some to take part in 5-day long professional courses after the conference (total 9-10 days), and yet, it is called merely a sponsorship. I could understand a three-month stint being called a fellowship - not the 3-day ICANN event. It is PR gold-spraying. As for the document being only in English, for EUR 4,500 ICANN could have had it translated into all 11 languages that are displayed in bar of the said document. In fact, EUR 3,000 would be enough, it it left out the part about "what is ICANN". Rui 2010/1/12 Adam Peake : > I suspect the intention has been to create something more than just a travel > support grant. The "fellows" are required to attend daily briefings while at > the ICANN meeting and to be active in meeting sessions, write a report, show > value they have taken back from the meeting.  By take back, I mean something > that has an input to a larger group (ccTLD, government, some community) so > their participation isn't just a one-off personal benefit. At least that's > my understanding. > > Very easy to give someone a ticket and cover their hotel costs and not put > any support programmes in place, and ICANN did that for a couple of years in > the early part of the decade (it had some value, but could have done more, I > know a few on this list who benefited.)  The Fellowship Program is trying to > do something more, and has good feedback so perhaps it's working. > > Adam > > > >> [Vanda - this is not directed at you; I can see it comes from the PR] >> >> I wonder who came up with this idiotic use o the word "fellowship" >> when referring to what is in fact a sponsorship to cover travel and >> accommodation (and "a stipend"). Then just to crown it, those who get >> the fellowships are called "alumni"! >> >> Must come from the same bright linguist who decided it was fine to use >> the word "itinerary" for an event programme! "Itinerary > Day 1 > Day >> 2" etc, all in the same venue! >> >> Rui >> >> >> >> 2010/1/12 Vanda UOL : >>> >>>  Dear all, Estimados amigos, Chers Amis >>> >>> >>> >>>  Please access >> >>  >   http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm  to >>> >>>  analyze the opportunity to join ICANN meeting in Brussels next June. >>> >>> >>> >>>  Por favor vean en >>>  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm la >>>  oportunidad de participar en la conferencia de ICANN en Bruselas el >>> próximo >>>  Junio >>> >>> >>> >>>  Svp accès >>>  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm >>>  pour analyser l'occasion de joindre la réunion d'ICANN à Bruxelles juin >>>  prochain. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Thank you for your attention / Gracias por su atención / Merci pour >>> votre >>>  attention >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Vanda Scartezini >>> >>>  Fellowship Program Committee >>> >>>  ICANN Board ­ ALAC Liaison >>> >>>  www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com >>> >>> >>> >>>  -----Original Message----- >>>  From: Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at free.fr] >>>  Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:39 AM >>>  To: Sébastien Bachollet >>>  Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request >>> for >>>  Comments >>> >>> >>> >>>  Dear all, >>> >>>  It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory >>>  committee of ICANN. >>> >>>  Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in >>> the >>>  messages bellow). >>> >>>  Please forward it to you pears. >>> >>>  All the best >>> >>> >>> >>>  Chers amis, >>> >>>  Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de >>> l'Icann. >>> >>>  Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les >>>  possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages >>>  ci-dessous). >>> >>>  Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. >>> >>>  Amicalement >>> >>> >>> >>>  Estimado todos, >>> >>>  Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. >>> >>>  Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. >>> >>>  Gracias >>> >>> >>> >>>  Sébastien Bachollet >>> >>>  Président d'honneur - Isoc France >>> >>>  sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr >>> >>>  www.egeni.org >>> >>>  www.isoc.fr >>> >>> >>> >>>  * La version française est ci-dessous >>> >>> >>> >>>  *La versión española está abajo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Dear All, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group >>> with >>>  the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for >>> the >>>  selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for >>>  wide-spread comment early in January 2010. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for >>>  review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. >>> The >> >>  > Œportal page¹ is available at: >>> >>> >>> >>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the >>>  Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large >>>  Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle >>> will >>>  be sent shortly). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make >>> your >>>  comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward >>> this >>>  message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on >>> the >>>  Director White Paper as widely as possible. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  ** >>> >>> >>> >>>  Cher tous, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe >>> de >>>  la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le >>>  choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le >>>  commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et >>> franc >>>  pour la revue.  Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire >>> aux >>>  pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : >>> >>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter >>> leurs >>>  observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel >>> de >>>  la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les >>> >>>  27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de >>> l'ONU. >>> >>>  Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki >>> utilisant >>>  le " ; comment" ; bouton. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre >>> à ce >>>  message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des >>>  commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme >>> possible. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Cordialment, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  ** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Estimado todos, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un >>>  pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso >>>  propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN >>> que >>>  se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y >>> el >>>  franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los >>>  próximos días. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en >>> las >>>  páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: >>> >>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto >>> al >>>  director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en >>> el >>>  proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero >>> de >>>  2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. >>> >>>  Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando >>> el >>>  " comment" botón. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a >>> este >>>  mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los >>>  comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea >>>  posible. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Respetos, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn >>> Vernon, >>>  Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff >>> >>> >>> >>>  email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org >>> >>>  website: www.atlarge.icann.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >>  > >>> >>>  To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> >>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >>> >>>  For all list information and functions, see: >>> >>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> >>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>>  ____________________________________________________________ >>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>  To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>  For all list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ________________________________________________ >> >> >> Rui Correia >> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >> Angola Liaison Consultant >> 2 Cutten St >> Horison >> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >> South Africa >> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >> _______________ >> áâãçéêíóôõúç >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From puna_gb at yahoo.com Tue Jan 12 09:56:58 2010 From: puna_gb at yahoo.com (Gao Mosweu) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 06:56:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] The ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <408351.13985.qm@web31507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The ICANN Fellowship Program, For me it is all really a matter of semantics Fellowship, sponsorship -  the past participants being called fellowship alumni... Really I think we should look at the good things that this initiative has done  - the cup is half full, that is how I look at it. I was one of the participants from the first fellowship round for the San Juan Meeting in June 2007. From that meeting alone, I learnt so much about ICANN, its processes, the community of people that make it all happen. For me it even became a launching pad for me to find my voice within my local community. It opened my eyes that a lot of people in my country do not know about Internet Governance, let alone the tremendous work that ICANN does. I became much more involved at the local community level, organised workshops on IG issues. I have since organised IPv6 training for local technicians, and made a presentation about ICANN at this training in the last year. I teach a group of part time students Ecommerce, and every year since I got involved with ICANN, each of them graduates from the course knowing at least about ICANN and its work around the world. Subsequent to the San Juan Meeting, I was at the Los Angeles meeting, and at the Paris Meeting as a mentor to first time fellows. I have also been able to get involved with the re-delegation process for our ccTLD – the .bw domain. I have been able to gather enough courage to walk up to the authorities in charge and challenge them to do something about it. I can tell you now that last year I submitted recommendations about the management or administration of the .bw domain... Guess what? Apparently a consultant from the west (a European country I think) had been hired previously to look into this specific issue, and came up with a 300 page document. It apparently did not render much in the way of way forward that was comprehensible, so in the end that same document I had prepared became the guiding document for further discussions! And the 300 page document had been shelved because nobody could really make sense of it. I personally think it was unfair for my country to have paid so much money for a report that they ultimately could not make sense of! No, I could not have done it without having been involved with ICANN... You could say that ICANN helped me to be the voice and the change I wanted to see. It helped me to gain enough confidence to tackle issues relating to the internet community in Botswana. Imagine, if it could help Botswana in the way it has, what about other countries? ICANN has helped me and my country in a phenomenal way through my fellowship participation! --- On Tue, 1/12/10, Rui Correia wrote: From: Rui Correia Subject: Re: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Adam Peake" Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 3:30 PM Adam, Fair enough. However, and using an example I was personally involved with - at Highway Africa (largest annual gathering of journalists from across Africa), a similar procedure is used, with people applying to attend with cost covered and some to take part in 5-day long professional courses after the conference (total 9-10 days), and yet, it is called merely a sponsorship. I could understand a three-month stint being called a fellowship - not the 3-day ICANN event. It is PR gold-spraying. As for the document being only in English, for EUR 4,500 ICANN could have had it translated into all 11 languages that are displayed in bar of the said document. In fact, EUR 3,000 would be enough, it it left out the part about "what is ICANN". Rui 2010/1/12 Adam Peake : > I suspect the intention has been to create something more than just a travel > support grant. The "fellows" are required to attend daily briefings while at > the ICANN meeting and to be active in meeting sessions, write a report, show > value they have taken back from the meeting.  By take back, I mean something > that has an input to a larger group (ccTLD, government, some community) so > their participation isn't just a one-off personal benefit. At least that's > my understanding. > > Very easy to give someone a ticket and cover their hotel costs and not put > any support programmes in place, and ICANN did that for a couple of years in > the early part of the decade (it had some value, but could have done more, I > know a few on this list who benefited.)  The Fellowship Program is trying to > do something more, and has good feedback so perhaps it's working. > > Adam > > > >> [Vanda - this is not directed at you; I can see it comes from the PR] >> >> I wonder who came up with this idiotic use o the word "fellowship" >> when referring to what is in fact a sponsorship to cover travel and >> accommodation (and "a stipend"). Then just to crown it, those who get >> the fellowships are called "alumni"! >> >> Must come from the same bright linguist who decided it was fine to use >> the word "itinerary" for an event programme! "Itinerary > Day 1 > Day >> 2" etc, all in the same venue! >> >> Rui >> >> >> >> 2010/1/12 Vanda UOL : >>> >>>  Dear all, Estimados amigos, Chers Amis >>> >>> >>> >>>  Please access >> >>  >   http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm  to >>> >>>  analyze the opportunity to join ICANN meeting in Brussels next June. >>> >>> >>> >>>  Por favor vean en >>>  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm la >>>  oportunidad de participar en la conferencia de ICANN en Bruselas el >>> próximo >>>  Junio >>> >>> >>> >>>  Svp accès >>>  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm >>>  pour analyser l'occasion de joindre la réunion d'ICANN à Bruxelles juin >>>  prochain. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Thank you for your attention / Gracias por su atención / Merci pour >>> votre >>>  attention >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Vanda Scartezini >>> >>>  Fellowship Program Committee >>> >>>  ICANN Board ­ ALAC Liaison >>> >>>  www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com >>> >>> >>> >>>  -----Original Message----- >>>  From: Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at free.fr] >>>  Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:39 AM >>>  To: Sébastien Bachollet >>>  Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request >>> for >>>  Comments >>> >>> >>> >>>  Dear all, >>> >>>  It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory >>>  committee of ICANN. >>> >>>  Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in >>> the >>>  messages bellow). >>> >>>  Please forward it to you pears. >>> >>>  All the best >>> >>> >>> >>>  Chers amis, >>> >>>  Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de >>> l'Icann. >>> >>>  Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les >>>  possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages >>>  ci-dessous). >>> >>>  Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. >>> >>>  Amicalement >>> >>> >>> >>>  Estimado todos, >>> >>>  Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. >>> >>>  Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. >>> >>>  Gracias >>> >>> >>> >>>  Sébastien Bachollet >>> >>>  Président d'honneur - Isoc France >>> >>>  sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr >>> >>>  www.egeni.org >>> >>>  www.isoc.fr >>> >>> >>> >>>  * La version française est ci-dessous >>> >>> >>> >>>  *La versión española está abajo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Dear All, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group >>> with >>>  the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for >>> the >>>  selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for >>>  wide-spread comment early in January 2010. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for >>>  review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. >>> The >> >>  > Œportal page¹ is available at: >>> >>> >>> >>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the >>>  Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large >>>  Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle >>> will >>>  be sent shortly). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make >>> your >>>  comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward >>> this >>>  message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on >>> the >>>  Director White Paper as widely as possible. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  ** >>> >>> >>> >>>  Cher tous, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe >>> de >>>  la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le >>>  choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le >>>  commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et >>> franc >>>  pour la revue.  Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire >>> aux >>>  pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : >>> >>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter >>> leurs >>>  observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel >>> de >>>  la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les >>> >>>  27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de >>> l'ONU. >>> >>>  Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki >>> utilisant >>>  le " ; comment" ; bouton. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre >>> à ce >>>  message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des >>>  commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme >>> possible. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Cordialment, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  ** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Estimado todos, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un >>>  pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso >>>  propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN >>> que >>>  se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y >>> el >>>  franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los >>>  próximos días. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en >>> las >>>  páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: >>> >>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto >>> al >>>  director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en >>> el >>>  proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero >>> de >>>  2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. >>> >>>  Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando >>> el >>>  " comment" botón. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a >>> este >>>  mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los >>>  comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea >>>  posible. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Respetos, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn >>> Vernon, >>>  Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff >>> >>> >>> >>>  email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org >>> >>>  website: www.atlarge.icann.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >>  > >>> >>>  To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> >>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >>> >>>  For all list information and functions, see: >>> >>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> >>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>>  ____________________________________________________________ >>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>  To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>  For all list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ________________________________________________ >> >> >> Rui Correia >> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >> Angola Liaison Consultant >> 2 Cutten St >> Horison >> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >> South Africa >> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >> _______________ >> áâãçéêíóôõúç >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 psg.com Tue Jan 12 10:40:25 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:40:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] The ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: <408351.13985.qm@web31507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <408351.13985.qm@web31507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2BC1AD60-934B-4C52-AB1D-E6609A1202F2@psg.com> Hi, Well said. As someone who has not been terribly shy about saying all kinds of mean things in my blog about ICANN and some of its actions, i think this program, whatever you call it is very serious and very real - a lot more then just a ticket. And a good thing run by a very dedicated ICANN staffer I have spoken with many fellows and they are serious and take their fellowship in ICANN seriously and as a continuing thing. And I have seen several of them take up various leadership positons either around ICANN and its contributing bodies or in related areas. I hope no one is dissuaded from applying for this opportunity and recommend that anyone who has been reading about ICANN and who is invovled in IG, think about applying a. PS. sure having the application material in the 6 UN languages would be good idea. On 12 Jan 2010, at 15:56, Gao Mosweu wrote: > The ICANN Fellowship Program, > > For me it is all really a matter of semantics Fellowship, sponsorship - the past participants being called fellowship alumni... Really I think we should look at the good things that this initiative has done - the cup is half full, that is how I look at it. > > I was one of the participants from the first fellowship round for the San Juan Meeting in June 2007. From that meeting alone, I learnt so much about ICANN, its processes, the community of people that make it all happen. > > For me it even became a launching pad for me to find my voice within my local community. It opened my eyes that a lot of people in my country do not know about Internet Governance, let alone the tremendous work that ICANN does. > > I became much more involved at the local community level, organised workshops on IG issues. > > I have since organised IPv6 training for local technicians, and made a presentation about ICANN at this training in the last year. > > I teach a group of part time students Ecommerce, and every year since I got involved with ICANN, each of them graduates from the course knowing at least about ICANN and its work around the world. > > Subsequent to the San Juan Meeting, I was at the Los Angeles meeting, and at the Paris Meeting as a mentor to first time fellows. > > I have also been able to get involved with the re-delegation process for our ccTLD – the .bw domain. I have been able to gather enough courage to walk up to the authorities in charge and challenge them to do something about it. > > I can tell you now that last year I submitted recommendations about the management or administration of the .bw domain... Guess what? Apparently a consultant from the west (a European country I think) had been hired previously to look into this specific issue, and came up with a 300 page document. It apparently did not render much in the way of way forward that was comprehensible, so in the end that same document I had prepared became the guiding document for further discussions! And the 300 page document had been shelved because nobody could really make sense of it. I personally think it was unfair for my country to have paid so much money for a report that they ultimately could not make sense of! > > No, I could not have done it without having been involved with ICANN... You could say that ICANN helped me to be the voice and the change I wanted to see. It helped me to gain enough confidence to tackle issues relating to the internet community in Botswana. > > Imagine, if it could help Botswana in the way it has, what about other countries? > > ICANN has helped me and my country in a phenomenal way through my fellowship participation! > > --- On Tue, 1/12/10, Rui Correia wrote: > > From: Rui Correia > Subject: Re: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Adam Peake" > Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 3:30 PM > > Adam, > > Fair enough. > > However, and using an example I was personally involved with - at > Highway Africa (largest annual gathering of journalists from across > Africa), a similar procedure is used, with people applying to attend > with cost covered and some to take part in 5-day long professional > courses after the conference (total 9-10 days), and yet, it is called > merely a sponsorship. I could understand a three-month stint being > called a fellowship - not the 3-day ICANN event. > > It is PR gold-spraying. > > As for the document being only in English, for EUR 4,500 ICANN could > have had it translated into all 11 languages that are displayed in bar > of the said document. In fact, EUR 3,000 would be enough, it it left > out the part about "what is ICANN". > > Rui > > 2010/1/12 Adam Peake : > > I suspect the intention has been to create something more than just a travel > > support grant. The "fellows" are required to attend daily briefings while at > > the ICANN meeting and to be active in meeting sessions, write a report, show > > value they have taken back from the meeting. By take back, I mean something > > that has an input to a larger group (ccTLD, government, some community) so > > their participation isn't just a one-off personal benefit. At least that's > > my understanding. > > > > Very easy to give someone a ticket and cover their hotel costs and not put > > any support programmes in place, and ICANN did that for a couple of years in > > the early part of the decade (it had some value, but could have done more, I > > know a few on this list who benefited.) The Fellowship Program is trying to > > do something more, and has good feedback so perhaps it's working. > > > > Adam > > > > > > > >> [Vanda - this is not directed at you; I can see it comes from the PR] > >> > >> I wonder who came up with this idiotic use o the word "fellowship" > >> when referring to what is in fact a sponsorship to cover travel and > >> accommodation (and "a stipend"). Then just to crown it, those who get > >> the fellowships are called "alumni"! > >> > >> Must come from the same bright linguist who decided it was fine to use > >> the word "itinerary" for an event programme! "Itinerary > Day 1 > Day > >> 2" etc, all in the same venue! > >> > >> Rui > >> > >> > >> > >> 2010/1/12 Vanda UOL : > >>> > >>> Dear all, Estimados amigos, Chers Amis > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Please access > >> > >> > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm to > >>> > >>> analyze the opportunity to join ICANN meeting in Brussels next June. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Por favor vean en > >>> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm la > >>> oportunidad de participar en la conferencia de ICANN en Bruselas el > >>> próximo > >>> Junio > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Svp accès > >>> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm > >>> pour analyser l'occasion de joindre la réunion d'ICANN à Bruxelles juin > >>> prochain. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thank you for your attention / Gracias por su atención / Merci pour > >>> votre > >>> attention > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Vanda Scartezini > >>> > >>> Fellowship Program Committee > >>> > >>> ICANN Board ALAC Liaison > >>> > >>> www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at free.fr] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:39 AM > >>> To: Sébastien Bachollet > >>> Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request > >>> for > >>> Comments > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dear all, > >>> > >>> It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory > >>> committee of ICANN. > >>> > >>> Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in > >>> the > >>> messages bellow). > >>> > >>> Please forward it to you pears. > >>> > >>> All the best > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Chers amis, > >>> > >>> Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de > >>> l'Icann. > >>> > >>> Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les > >>> possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages > >>> ci-dessous). > >>> > >>> Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. > >>> > >>> Amicalement > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Estimado todos, > >>> > >>> Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. > >>> > >>> Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. > >>> > >>> Gracias > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Sébastien Bachollet > >>> > >>> Président d'honneur - Isoc France > >>> > >>> sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr > >>> > >>> www.egeni.org > >>> > >>> www.isoc.fr > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> * La version française est ci-dessous > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *La versión española está abajo > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dear All, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group > >>> with > >>> the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for > >>> the > >>> selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for > >>> wide-spread comment early in January 2010. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for > >>> review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. > >>> The > >> > >> > Œportal page¹ is available at: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the > >>> Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large > >>> Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle > >>> will > >>> be sent shortly). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make > >>> your > >>> comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward > >>> this > >>> message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on > >>> the > >>> Director White Paper as widely as possible. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ** > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Cher tous, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe > >>> de > >>> la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le > >>> choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le > >>> commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et > >>> franc > >>> pour la revue. Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire > >>> aux > >>> pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : > >>> > >>> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter > >>> leurs > >>> observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel > >>> de > >>> la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les > >>> > >>> 27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de > >>> l'ONU. > >>> > >>> Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki > >>> utilisant > >>> le " ; comment" ; bouton. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre > >>> à ce > >>> message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des > >>> commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme > >>> possible. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Cordialment, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ** > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Estimado todos, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un > >>> pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso > >>> propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN > >>> que > >>> se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y > >>> el > >>> franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los > >>> próximos días. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en > >>> las > >>> páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: > >>> > >>> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto > >>> al > >>> director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en > >>> el > >>> proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero > >>> de > >>> 2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. > >>> > >>> Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando > >>> el > >>> " comment" botón. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a > >>> este > >>> mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los > >>> comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea > >>> posible. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Respetos, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn > >>> Vernon, > >>> Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org > >>> > >>> website: www.atlarge.icann.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> > > >>> > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ________________________________________________ > >> > >> > >> Rui Correia > >> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > >> Angola Liaison Consultant > >> 2 Cutten St > >> Horison > >> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > >> South Africa > >> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > >> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > >> _______________ > >> áâãçéêíóôõúç > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 12 11:11:47 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:11:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: References: <013001ca9382$c12a8020$437f8060$@com.br> Message-ID: In message , at 15:30:48 on Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Rui Correia writes >I could understand a three-month stint being >called a fellowship - not the 3-day ICANN event. Is this a subset of the ICANN meeting (which is six days long, now that the day before the day-with-the-opening-ceremony has a pretty full programme). -- 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 12 12:39:40 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:39:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Aw: Re: Aw: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <971001.22992.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> (of course I followed the logic damnit - I could take offense at your categorization -- but how silly that would be, your point is well made sir*)   I have many reasons that governments should not do things. But mere size of the undertaking does not rank up there.   In essence Yahuda I see two governments everywhere. The duly elected officialdom that is democratically or by force put into position to tax and spend and curb and regulate --- And then there are/is us. The governance of action by logic, the greatest good and even a battle over morality. (never perfect - save that perfection is in the attempt and striving)  So we know the first group exists and even enlists, not to be ignored. Obedience to the law is the greatest freedom and all that Abe nonsense.  However we exist also - thank whoever - and it is our calling if you will to infect and influence the former.  So as you did, to cut off argument here, to say it is too hard or results in dependent slavery is apropo of nothing.   The value is true - neutrality is a better option for both search and net. Now you propose we do nothing in light of this truth -- I propose we advocate and help guide likeminded in governance and supply them with tools such as Parminders logic and Gersteins and Rolands comments.   Of course since i address your good comments I give you the highest respect and in fact hope that others learn from your input.         *Extreme positions are not succeeded by moderate ones, but by contrary extreme positions.  Friedrich Nietzsche  "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." - Cicero - 55 BC --- On Tue, 1/12/10, Yehuda Katz wrote: From: Yehuda Katz Subject: Aw: Re: Aw: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 2:14 AM I beg to differ  Eric, Perhapes I should have posted Michael & Rolands comments together (below here), so that you may follow the logic. ..."Roland Perry wrote, à la Michael Gurstein: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-01/msg00049.html In message , at 05:28:08 on Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Michael Gurstein writes >Well, as Margaret Thatcher (in)famously said at one point, "there is no >society" (and thus presumably no "social/public interest") and then she and >her accolytes proceeded to ensure through policy and process that her wish >was made flesh to the continuing detriment of all.     "I think we've been through a period where too many people have     been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the     government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a     grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're     casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no     such thing as society." So it's nothing to do with "social/public interest", but whether or not people can expect a magic financial crutch to support them in their adversity. It's almost exactly the same set of issues as the current USA healthcare debate. I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current mechanisms were failing their collective citizens?  ... - ..."Roland Perry wrote: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-01/msg00055.html ... That's a misrepresentation of the Thatcherite doctrine. The UK continued with policies that were much more socialist than many other countries (Nationalised Health and Education, widespread welfare system etc). Her statement, which is basically "There's no such thing as a Disney-esque Fairy Godmother" did not deny the possibility that the State should continue to organise a very wide range of state-run benefits, and collect large amounts of taxation to fund them! ... - ..."Roland Perry wrote: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-01/msg00070.html In message <4B46D0F8.101 at itforchange.net>, at 12:00:16 on Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Parminder writes: >there is another ideology opposed to this one which believes that there is at >present large scale social injustice which has to be corrected by strong >positive measures for social justice - which often involves redistributive >measures which you call as 'magic financial crutch'. Just to be clear, I was describing what I believe to be Margaret Thatcher's views, when she made her much misquoted statements about "society". That was many years ago, and I don't necessarily agree with the philosophy either then, or now. But I do feel that if you are going to criticise someone, the least you can do first is properly understand what it is you are criticising. ..." - Just to be clear Eric,    "Thatcher's Views" and any Goverment with ONE+Plus BILLION PEOPLE are going to have to venture off into the Magic Kingdom of Fairy God Mothers (or the 'Land of Bailouts & Voodoo Economics') in order to FUND the "Entitlements". And the Chinese proved my point. Roland and I are just being 'practical & pargmatic' about the economics surrounding the 'Request of Rights' this List deems to advance. If it were economically possible to do, it would have been done by now. So go ahead Eric, Fart in the Hurricane. -- ..." Eric Dierker wrote: >Faulty logic Yehuda. >Mere numbers and size are not reasons large governments do not do things.  >Perhaps you would do yourself a favor and study bureaucrats. Perhapes You should study India, 'They' (Bureaucrats) are going to look you in the face, shake their heads, ah-ha, ah-ha,... and not do a damn thing about it, Because there is no way to do it. They don't have the structure or the economic resources to Fulfill the Rights that you so elequently impose upon them, by the swift touch of your electronic keyboard, sharp tongue, and first-world station in life. Adios Amigo ;-) --- On Fri, 1/8/10, Yehuda Katz wrote: From: Yehuda Katz Subject: Aw: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, January 8, 2010, 6:55 PM >> >>Hurray for you Parminder! >> >>That was exactly my conncerns, when You'all were pushing for "Entiltlements" as >>I put it on Aug 2009 (Thu, 27th)*  through the IGC**: Statement by IGC >>supporting rights and principles . >> >>And it is exactly why the Chinese did not want it pursued [Try providing >>Entiltlements (Fulfill the Rights) for 1.3 Billion Chinese and then another 1.3 >>Indians], Governments weren't designed to handle the load. >> >>I'll go alittle further too say, And that's why I'm calling for something new >>(A new Government Design). - Ref: *  Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund? per Yehuda Katz [governance] Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund? http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-08/msg00325.html ** Concensus Call per Lisa Horner FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-09/msg00136.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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 12 14:44:14 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:44:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] The ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: <2BC1AD60-934B-4C52-AB1D-E6609A1202F2@psg.com> Message-ID: <283233.36775.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I have been critical of the Fellowship program since it's inception.  I would like to believe that the critiques thrashed out in the GNSO and particularly the GA over the last five years have aided in defining and restructuring of the program.   I do not like what I think is "tokenism" in the program.    But make no mistake, it is a very good program and has done a lot of very good work.  Engaging in the program and applying and supporting it is a very good idea.   Eric --- On Tue, 1/12/10, Avri Doria wrote: From: Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] The ICANN Fellowship Program To: "IGC" Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 3:40 PM Hi, Well said. As someone who has not been terribly shy about saying all kinds of mean things in my blog about ICANN and some of its actions, i think this program, whatever you call it is very serious and very real - a lot more then just a ticket.  And a good thing run by a very dedicated ICANN staffer I have spoken with many fellows and they are serious and take their fellowship in ICANN seriously and as a continuing thing.  And I have seen several of them take up various leadership positons either around ICANN and its contributing bodies or in related areas. I hope no one is dissuaded from applying for this opportunity and recommend that anyone who has been reading about ICANN and who is invovled in IG, think about applying a. PS. sure having the application material in the 6 UN languages would be  good idea. On 12 Jan 2010, at 15:56, Gao Mosweu wrote: > The ICANN Fellowship Program, > > For me it is all really a matter of semantics Fellowship, sponsorship -  the past participants being called fellowship alumni... Really I think we should look at the good things that this initiative has done  - the cup is half full, that is how I look at it. > > I was one of the participants from the first fellowship round for the San Juan Meeting in June 2007. From that meeting alone, I learnt so much about ICANN, its processes, the community of people that make it all happen. > > For me it even became a launching pad for me to find my voice within my local community. It opened my eyes that a lot of people in my country do not know about Internet Governance, let alone the tremendous work that ICANN does. > > I became much more involved at the local community level, organised workshops on IG issues. > > I have since organised IPv6 training for local technicians, and made a presentation about ICANN at this training in the last year.  > > I teach a group of part time students Ecommerce, and every year since I got involved with ICANN, each of them graduates from the course knowing at least about ICANN and its work around the world. > > Subsequent to the San Juan Meeting, I was at the Los Angeles meeting, and at the Paris Meeting as a mentor to first time fellows. > > I have also been able to get involved with the re-delegation process for our ccTLD – the .bw domain. I have been able to gather enough courage to walk up to the authorities in charge and challenge them to do something about it. > > I can tell you now that last year I submitted recommendations about the management or administration of the .bw domain... Guess what? Apparently a consultant from the west (a European country I think) had been hired previously to look into this specific issue, and came up with a 300 page document. It apparently did not render much in the way of way forward that was comprehensible, so in the end that same document I had prepared became the guiding document for further discussions! And the 300 page document had been shelved because nobody could really make sense of it. I personally think it was unfair for my country to have paid so much money for a report that they ultimately could not make sense of! > > No, I could not have done it without having been involved with ICANN... You could say that ICANN helped me to be the voice and the change I wanted to see. It helped me to gain enough confidence to tackle issues relating to the internet community in Botswana. > > Imagine, if it could help Botswana in the way it has, what about other countries? > > ICANN has helped me and my country in a phenomenal way through my fellowship participation! > > --- On Tue, 1/12/10, Rui Correia wrote: > > From: Rui Correia > Subject: Re: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Adam Peake" > Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 3:30 PM > > Adam, > > Fair enough. > > However, and using an example I was personally involved with - at > Highway Africa (largest annual gathering of journalists from across > Africa), a similar procedure is used, with people applying to attend > with cost covered and some to take part in 5-day long professional > courses after the conference (total 9-10 days), and yet, it is called > merely a sponsorship. I could understand a three-month stint being > called a fellowship - not the 3-day ICANN event. > > It is PR gold-spraying. > > As for the document being only in English, for EUR 4,500 ICANN could > have had it translated into all 11 languages that are displayed in bar > of the said document. In fact, EUR 3,000 would be enough, it it left > out the part about "what is ICANN". > > Rui > > 2010/1/12 Adam Peake : > > I suspect the intention has been to create something more than just a travel > > support grant. The "fellows" are required to attend daily briefings while at > > the ICANN meeting and to be active in meeting sessions, write a report, show > > value they have taken back from the meeting.  By take back, I mean something > > that has an input to a larger group (ccTLD, government, some community) so > > their participation isn't just a one-off personal benefit. At least that's > > my understanding. > > > > Very easy to give someone a ticket and cover their hotel costs and not put > > any support programmes in place, and ICANN did that for a couple of years in > > the early part of the decade (it had some value, but could have done more, I > > know a few on this list who benefited.)  The Fellowship Program is trying to > > do something more, and has good feedback so perhaps it's working. > > > > Adam > > > > > > > >> [Vanda - this is not directed at you; I can see it comes from the PR] > >> > >> I wonder who came up with this idiotic use o the word "fellowship" > >> when referring to what is in fact a sponsorship to cover travel and > >> accommodation (and "a stipend"). Then just to crown it, those who get > >> the fellowships are called "alumni"! > >> > >> Must come from the same bright linguist who decided it was fine to use > >> the word "itinerary" for an event programme! "Itinerary > Day 1 > Day > >> 2" etc, all in the same venue! > >> > >> Rui > >> > >> > >> > >> 2010/1/12 Vanda UOL : > >>> > >>>  Dear all, Estimados amigos, Chers Amis > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Please access > >> > >>  >   http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm  to > >>> > >>>  analyze the opportunity to join ICANN meeting in Brussels next June. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Por favor vean en > >>>  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm la > >>>  oportunidad de participar en la conferencia de ICANN en Bruselas el > >>> próximo > >>>  Junio > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Svp accès > >>>  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm > >>>  pour analyser l'occasion de joindre la réunion d'ICANN à Bruxelles juin > >>>  prochain. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Thank you for your attention / Gracias por su atención / Merci pour > >>> votre > >>>  attention > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Vanda Scartezini > >>> > >>>  Fellowship Program Committee > >>> > >>>  ICANN Board  ALAC Liaison > >>> > >>>  www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  -----Original Message----- > >>>  From: Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at free.fr] > >>>  Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:39 AM > >>>  To: Sébastien Bachollet > >>>  Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request > >>> for > >>>  Comments > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Dear all, > >>> > >>>  It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory > >>>  committee of ICANN. > >>> > >>>  Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in > >>> the > >>>  messages bellow). > >>> > >>>  Please forward it to you pears. > >>> > >>>  All the best > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Chers amis, > >>> > >>>  Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de > >>> l'Icann. > >>> > >>>  Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les > >>>  possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages > >>>  ci-dessous). > >>> > >>>  Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. > >>> > >>>  Amicalement > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Estimado todos, > >>> > >>>  Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. > >>> > >>>  Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. > >>> > >>>  Gracias > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Sébastien Bachollet > >>> > >>>  Président d'honneur - Isoc France > >>> > >>>  sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr > >>> > >>>  www.egeni.org > >>> > >>>  www.isoc.fr > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  * La version française est ci-dessous > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  *La versión española está abajo > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Dear All, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group > >>> with > >>>  the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for > >>> the > >>>  selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for > >>>  wide-spread comment early in January 2010. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for > >>>  review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. > >>> The > >> > >>  > Œportal page¹ is available at: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the > >>>  Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large > >>>  Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle > >>> will > >>>  be sent shortly). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make > >>> your > >>>  comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward > >>> this > >>>  message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on > >>> the > >>>  Director White Paper as widely as possible. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  ** > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Cher tous, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe > >>> de > >>>  la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le > >>>  choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le > >>>  commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et > >>> franc > >>>  pour la revue.  Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire > >>> aux > >>>  pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : > >>> > >>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter > >>> leurs > >>>  observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel > >>> de > >>>  la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les > >>> > >>>  27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de > >>> l'ONU. > >>> > >>>  Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki > >>> utilisant > >>>  le " ; comment" ; bouton. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre > >>> à ce > >>>  message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des > >>>  commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme > >>> possible. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Cordialment, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  ** > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Estimado todos, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un > >>>  pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso > >>>  propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN > >>> que > >>>  se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y > >>> el > >>>  franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los > >>>  próximos días. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en > >>> las > >>>  páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: > >>> > >>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto > >>> al > >>>  director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en > >>> el > >>>  proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero > >>> de > >>>  2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. > >>> > >>>  Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando > >>> el > >>>  " comment" botón. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a > >>> este > >>>  mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los > >>>  comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea > >>>  posible. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Respetos, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn > >>> Vernon, > >>>  Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org > >>> > >>>  website: www.atlarge.icann.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  ____________________________________________________________ > >>> > >>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> > >>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >>  > > >>> > >>>  To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> > >>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  For all list information and functions, see: > >>> > >>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>>  ____________________________________________________________ > >>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>>  To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>>  For all list information and functions, see: > >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ________________________________________________ > >> > >> > >> Rui Correia > >> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > >> Angola Liaison Consultant > >> 2 Cutten St > >> Horison > >> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > >> South Africa > >> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > >> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > >> _______________ > >> áâãçéêíóôõúç > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Jan 12 15:10:19 2010 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:10:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: References: <013001ca9382$c12a8020$437f8060$@com.br> Message-ID: <64314.24175.qm@web58908.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Rui, Buy a dictionary and look up the word fellowship before making these silly assertions. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Rui Correia To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake Sent: Wed, 13 January, 2010 12:30:48 AM Subject: Re: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program Adam, Fair enough. However, and using an example I was personally involved with - at Highway Africa (largest annual gathering of journalists from across Africa), a similar procedure is used, with people applying to attend with cost covered and some to take part in 5-day long professional courses after the conference (total 9-10 days), and yet, it is called merely a sponsorship. I could understand a three-month stint being called a fellowship - not the 3-day ICANN event. It is PR gold-spraying. As for the document being only in English, for EUR 4,500 ICANN could have had it translated into all 11 languages that are displayed in bar of the said document. In fact, EUR 3,000 would be enough, it it left out the part about "what is ICANN". Rui 2010/1/12 Adam Peake : > I suspect the intention has been to create something more than just a travel > support grant. The "fellows" are required to attend daily briefings while at > the ICANN meeting and to be active in meeting sessions, write a report, show > value they have taken back from the meeting. By take back, I mean something > that has an input to a larger group (ccTLD, government, some community) so > their participation isn't just a one-off personal benefit. At least that's > my understanding. > > Very easy to give someone a ticket and cover their hotel costs and not put > any support programmes in place, and ICANN did that for a couple of years in > the early part of the decade (it had some value, but could have done more, I > know a few on this list who benefited.) The Fellowship Program is trying to > do something more, and has good feedback so perhaps it's working. > > Adam > > > >> [Vanda - this is not directed at you; I can see it comes from the PR] >> >> I wonder who came up with this idiotic use o the word "fellowship" >> when referring to what is in fact a sponsorship to cover travel and >> accommodation (and "a stipend"). Then just to crown it, those who get >> the fellowships are called "alumni"! >> >> Must come from the same bright linguist who decided it was fine to use >> the word "itinerary" for an event programme! "Itinerary > Day 1 > Day >> 2" etc, all in the same venue! >> >> Rui >> >> >> >> 2010/1/12 Vanda UOL : >>> >>> Dear all, Estimados amigos, Chers Amis >>> >>> >>> >>> Please access >> >> > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm to >>> >>> analyze the opportunity to join ICANN meeting in Brussels next June. >>> >>> >>> >>> Por favor vean en >>> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm la >>> oportunidad de participar en la conferencia de ICANN en Bruselas el >>> próximo >>> Junio >>> >>> >>> >>> Svp accès >>> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm >>> pour analyser l'occasion de joindre la réunion d'ICANN à Bruxelles juin >>> prochain. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you for your attention / Gracias por su atención / Merci pour >>> votre >>> attention >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Vanda Scartezini >>> >>> Fellowship Program Committee >>> >>> ICANN Board ­ ALAC Liaison >>> >>> www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at free.fr] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:39 AM >>> To: Sébastien Bachollet >>> Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request >>> for >>> Comments >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory >>> committee of ICANN. >>> >>> Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in >>> the >>> messages bellow). >>> >>> Please forward it to you pears. >>> >>> All the best >>> >>> >>> >>> Chers amis, >>> >>> Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de >>> l'Icann. >>> >>> Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les >>> possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages >>> ci-dessous). >>> >>> Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. >>> >>> Amicalement >>> >>> >>> >>> Estimado todos, >>> >>> Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. >>> >>> Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. >>> >>> Gracias >>> >>> >>> >>> Sébastien Bachollet >>> >>> Président d'honneur - Isoc France >>> >>> sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr >>> >>> www.egeni.org >>> >>> www.isoc.fr >>> >>> >>> >>> * La version française est ci-dessous >>> >>> >>> >>> *La versión española está abajo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group >>> with >>> the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for >>> the >>> selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for >>> wide-spread comment early in January 2010. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for >>> review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. >>> The >> >> > Œportal page¹ is available at: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the >>> Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large >>> Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle >>> will >>> be sent shortly). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make >>> your >>> comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward >>> this >>> message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on >>> the >>> Director White Paper as widely as possible. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ** >>> >>> >>> >>> Cher tous, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe >>> de >>> la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le >>> choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le >>> commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et >>> franc >>> pour la revue. Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire >>> aux >>> pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : >>> >>> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter >>> leurs >>> observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel >>> de >>> la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les >>> >>> 27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de >>> l'ONU. >>> >>> Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki >>> utilisant >>> le " ; comment" ; bouton. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre >>> à ce >>> message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des >>> commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme >>> possible. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Cordialment, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Estimado todos, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un >>> pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso >>> propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN >>> que >>> se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y >>> el >>> franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los >>> próximos días. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en >>> las >>> páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: >>> >>> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto >>> al >>> director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en >>> el >>> proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero >>> de >>> 2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. >>> >>> Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando >>> el >>> " comment" botón. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a >>> este >>> mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los >>> comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea >>> posible. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Respetos, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn >>> Vernon, >>> Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff >>> >>> >>> >>> email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org >>> >>> website: www.atlarge.icann.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> > >>> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ________________________________________________ >> >> >> Rui Correia >> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >> Angola Liaison Consultant >> 2 Cutten St >> Horison >> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >> South Africa >> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >> _______________ >> áâãçéêíóôõúç >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t __________________________________________________________________________________ See what's on at the movies in your area. Find out now: http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com Tue Jan 12 15:29:10 2010 From: nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com (NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:29:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN no. 37 NAIROBI | 7-12 March 2010 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <377622.45007.qm@web34308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I will be attending the Fellowship Program as one of those shortlisted. I will welcome any contribution on ANY issue you may want (re)presented at the Fellowship. Regards. Pastor Peters OMORAGBON Executive President/CEO Nurses Across the Borders Humanitarian Initiative-Inc.-(Nigeria & U.S.A) An NGO On Special Consultative Status with The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations-(ECOSOC) Member(OBSERVER),United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) URL: www.nursesacrosstheborders.org NABHI as affiliate of the United Nations is poised to uphold the TENETS of the CHARTERS of the UN. THIS it pledges to promote and publicise for enhanced Sustainable Developmet. WE believe in a World of Law and Order, Peace and Security with RESPECT for Fundamental Human Rights. NABHI IS NOT A VISA PROCUREMENT AGENCY NOR IS IT AN INTERNATIONAL RECRUITMENT AGENCY --- On Mon, 1/11/10, Yehuda Katz wrote: > From: Yehuda Katz > Subject: [governance] ICANN no. 37 NAIROBI | 7-12 March 2010 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Monday, January 11, 2010, 1:06 AM > Time is running short for ICANN no. > 37 NAIROBI | 7-12 March 2010 > http://nbo.icann.org/ > > Any IGC / CPSR Mailist Members going ? > Any Statements or Paper Presentaions? > > - > > ALAC Scheadule: > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_nairobi_schedule > > - > > AFRALO-ICANN At Large Africa > https://st.icann.org/afralo/index.cgi?action=recent_changes > > - > > EURALO-ICANN At Large Europe > https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?action=recent_changes > > - > > ASIAPAC-ICANN At Large Asia Pacific > https://st.icann.org/asiapac/index.cgi?action=recent_changes > > - > > NARALO-ICANN At Large North America > https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?action=recent_changes > > - > > LAC RALO > https://st.icann.org/lacralo/index.cgi?action=recent_changes > > - > > At Large Advisory Committee > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi > > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?action=recent_changes > > - > > GNSO Council Workspace > https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi > > https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?action=recent_changes > > -- > > Diplo Internet Governance.org > http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/video/icann-nairobi > > --- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Tue Jan 12 16:05:38 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:05:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: <64314.24175.qm@web58908.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <013001ca9382$c12a8020$437f8060$@com.br> <64314.24175.qm@web58908.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Yes, David Guess I'll ask ICANN to by me one - they can justify it as a Fellowship. I'll then look u the word, and once I know the meaning, I'll call myself an alumnus. Rui 2010/1/12 David Goldstein : > Rui, > > Buy a dictionary and look up the word fellowship before making these silly assertions. > > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Rui Correia > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > Sent: Wed, 13 January, 2010 12:30:48 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program > > Adam, > > Fair enough. > > However, and using an example I was personally involved with - at > Highway Africa (largest annual gathering of journalists from across > Africa), a similar procedure is used, with people applying to attend > with cost covered and some to take part in 5-day long professional > courses after the conference (total 9-10 days), and yet, it is called > merely a sponsorship. I could understand a three-month stint being > called a fellowship - not the 3-day ICANN event. > > It is PR gold-spraying. > > As for the document being only in English, for EUR 4,500 ICANN could > have had it translated into all 11 languages that are displayed in bar > of the said document. In fact, EUR 3,000 would be enough, it it left > out the part about "what is ICANN". > > Rui > > 2010/1/12 Adam Peake : >> I suspect the intention has been to create something more than just a travel >> support grant. The "fellows" are required to attend daily briefings while at >> the ICANN meeting and to be active in meeting sessions, write a report, show >> value they have taken back from the meeting.  By take back, I mean something >> that has an input to a larger group (ccTLD, government, some community) so >> their participation isn't just a one-off personal benefit. At least that's >> my understanding. >> >> Very easy to give someone a ticket and cover their hotel costs and not put >> any support programmes in place, and ICANN did that for a couple of years in >> the early part of the decade (it had some value, but could have done more, I >> know a few on this list who benefited.)  The Fellowship Program is trying to >> do something more, and has good feedback so perhaps it's working. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> [Vanda - this is not directed at you; I can see it comes from the PR] >>> >>> I wonder who came up with this idiotic use o the word "fellowship" >>> when referring to what is in fact a sponsorship to cover travel and >>> accommodation (and "a stipend"). Then just to crown it, those who get >>> the fellowships are called "alumni"! >>> >>> Must come from the same bright linguist who decided it was fine to use >>> the word "itinerary" for an event programme! "Itinerary > Day 1 > Day >>> 2" etc, all in the same venue! >>> >>> Rui >>> >>> >>> >>> 2010/1/12 Vanda UOL : >>>> >>>>  Dear all, Estimados amigos, Chers Amis >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Please access >>> >>>  >   http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm  to >>>> >>>>  analyze the opportunity to join ICANN meeting in Brussels next June. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Por favor vean en >>>>  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm la >>>>  oportunidad de participar en la conferencia de ICANN en Bruselas el >>>> próximo >>>>  Junio >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Svp accès >>>>  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm >>>>  pour analyser l'occasion de joindre la réunion d'ICANN à Bruxelles juin >>>>  prochain. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Thank you for your attention / Gracias por su atención / Merci pour >>>> votre >>>>  attention >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Vanda Scartezini >>>> >>>>  Fellowship Program Committee >>>> >>>>  ICANN Board ­ ALAC Liaison >>>> >>>>  www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  -----Original Message----- >>>>  From: Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at free.fr] >>>>  Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:39 AM >>>>  To: Sébastien Bachollet >>>>  Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request >>>> for >>>>  Comments >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Dear all, >>>> >>>>  It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory >>>>  committee of ICANN. >>>> >>>>  Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in >>>> the >>>>  messages bellow). >>>> >>>>  Please forward it to you pears. >>>> >>>>  All the best >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Chers amis, >>>> >>>>  Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de >>>> l'Icann. >>>> >>>>  Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les >>>>  possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages >>>>  ci-dessous). >>>> >>>>  Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. >>>> >>>>  Amicalement >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Estimado todos, >>>> >>>>  Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. >>>> >>>>  Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. >>>> >>>>  Gracias >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Sébastien Bachollet >>>> >>>>  Président d'honneur - Isoc France >>>> >>>>  sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr >>>> >>>>  www.egeni.org >>>> >>>>  www.isoc.fr >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  * La version française est ci-dessous >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  *La versión española está abajo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Dear All, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group >>>> with >>>>  the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for >>>> the >>>>  selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for >>>>  wide-spread comment early in January 2010. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for >>>>  review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. >>>> The >>> >>>  > Œportal page¹ is available at: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the >>>>  Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large >>>>  Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle >>>> will >>>>  be sent shortly). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make >>>> your >>>>  comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward >>>> this >>>>  message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on >>>> the >>>>  Director White Paper as widely as possible. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  ** >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Cher tous, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe >>>> de >>>>  la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le >>>>  choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le >>>>  commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et >>>> franc >>>>  pour la revue.  Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire >>>> aux >>>>  pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : >>>> >>>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter >>>> leurs >>>>  observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel >>>> de >>>>  la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les >>>> >>>>  27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de >>>> l'ONU. >>>> >>>>  Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki >>>> utilisant >>>>  le " ; comment" ; bouton. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre >>>> à ce >>>>  message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des >>>>  commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme >>>> possible. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Cordialment, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  ** >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Estimado todos, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un >>>>  pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso >>>>  propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN >>>> que >>>>  se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y >>>> el >>>>  franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los >>>>  próximos días. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en >>>> las >>>>  páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: >>>> >>>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto >>>> al >>>>  director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en >>>> el >>>>  proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero >>>> de >>>>  2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. >>>> >>>>  Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando >>>> el >>>>  " comment" botón. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a >>>> este >>>>  mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los >>>>  comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea >>>>  posible. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Respetos, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn >>>> Vernon, >>>>  Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org >>>> >>>>  website: www.atlarge.icann.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>  > >>>> >>>>  To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> >>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  For all list information and functions, see: >>>> >>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>>  ____________________________________________________________ >>>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>  To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>>  For all list information and functions, see: >>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ________________________________________________ >>> >>> >>> Rui Correia >>> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >>> Angola Liaison Consultant >>> 2 Cutten St >>> Horison >>> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >>> South Africa >>> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >>> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >>> _______________ >>> áâãçéêíóôõúç >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >      __________________________________________________________________________________ > See what's on at the movies in your area. Find out now: http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/ > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 12 17:16:46 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:16:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <608806.63975.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Rui and David,   Sometimes language does not fit your dictionaries so well.  I first noticed the term itinerary while in Paris in 1975. Did not think about it much. It was used to show us the general schedule of events. Yes it was misused but everyone knew what it meant and there were at least 10 languages attending. Saw it again at a trade-show in Hanoi, 2001 and again at SunMicro with a Stanford affiliation seminar/webinar conference. As I thought about it -- I saw it quite a bit in the 80's and 90's from Telluride to Tel Aviv.   This particular word seemed to get it's legs in the tourism to business tourism and into the event planning lingo as it was generally understood in areas where the conferences would take place do to surrounding economies based on international tourism.   Fellowship actually has the same basic transborder understandings. Mainly due to the international exchange student tourism model.   So fastidious arguments regarding exact definitions are really not helpful in making contributions to governance. --- On Tue, 1/12/10, Uri Corrie wrote: From: Rui Correia Subject: Re: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program To: "David Goldstein" , governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 9:05 PM Yes, David Guess I'll ask ICANN to by me one - they can justify it as a Fellowship. I'll then look u the word, and once I know the meaning, I'll call myself an alumnus. Rui 2010/1/12 David Goldstein : > Rui, > > Buy a dictionary and look up the word fellowship before making these silly assertions. > > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Rui Correia > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > Sent: Wed, 13 January, 2010 12:30:48 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program > > Adam, > > Fair enough. > > However, and using an example I was personally involved with - at > Highway Africa (largest annual gathering of journalists from across > Africa), a similar procedure is used, with people applying to attend > with cost covered and some to take part in 5-day long professional > courses after the conference (total 9-10 days), and yet, it is called > merely a sponsorship. I could understand a three-month stint being > called a fellowship - not the 3-day ICANN event. > > It is PR gold-spraying. > > As for the document being only in English, for EUR 4,500 ICANN could > have had it translated into all 11 languages that are displayed in bar > of the said document. In fact, EUR 3,000 would be enough, it it left > out the part about "what is ICANN". > > Rui > > 2010/1/12 Adam Peake : >> I suspect the intention has been to create something more than just a travel >> support grant. The "fellows" are required to attend daily briefings while at >> the ICANN meeting and to be active in meeting sessions, write a report, show >> value they have taken back from the meeting.  By take back, I mean something >> that has an input to a larger group (ccTLD, government, some community) so >> their participation isn't just a one-off personal benefit. At least that's >> my understanding. >> >> Very easy to give someone a ticket and cover their hotel costs and not put >> any support programmes in place, and ICANN did that for a couple of years in >> the early part of the decade (it had some value, but could have done more, I >> know a few on this list who benefited.)  The Fellowship Program is trying to >> do something more, and has good feedback so perhaps it's working. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> [Vanda - this is not directed at you; I can see it comes from the PR] >>> >>> I wonder who came up with this idiotic use o the word "fellowship" >>> when referring to what is in fact a sponsorship to cover travel and >>> accommodation (and "a stipend"). Then just to crown it, those who get >>> the fellowships are called "alumni"! >>> >>> Must come from the same bright linguist who decided it was fine to use >>> the word "itinerary" for an event programme! "Itinerary > Day 1 > Day >>> 2" etc, all in the same venue! >>> >>> Rui >>> >>> >>> >>> 2010/1/12 Vanda UOL : >>>> >>>>  Dear all, Estimados amigos, Chers Amis >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Please access >>> >>>  >   http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm  to >>>> >>>>  analyze the opportunity to join ICANN meeting in Brussels next June. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Por favor vean en >>>>  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm la >>>>  oportunidad de participar en la conferencia de ICANN en Bruselas el >>>> próximo >>>>  Junio >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Svp accès >>>>  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm >>>>  pour analyser l'occasion de joindre la réunion d'ICANN à Bruxelles juin >>>>  prochain. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Thank you for your attention / Gracias por su atención / Merci pour >>>> votre >>>>  attention >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Vanda Scartezini >>>> >>>>  Fellowship Program Committee >>>> >>>>  ICANN Board ­ ALAC Liaison >>>> >>>>  www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  -----Original Message----- >>>>  From: Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at free.fr] >>>>  Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:39 AM >>>>  To: Sébastien Bachollet >>>>  Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request >>>> for >>>>  Comments >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Dear all, >>>> >>>>  It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory >>>>  committee of ICANN. >>>> >>>>  Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in >>>> the >>>>  messages bellow). >>>> >>>>  Please forward it to you pears. >>>> >>>>  All the best >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Chers amis, >>>> >>>>  Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de >>>> l'Icann. >>>> >>>>  Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les >>>>  possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages >>>>  ci-dessous). >>>> >>>>  Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. >>>> >>>>  Amicalement >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Estimado todos, >>>> >>>>  Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. >>>> >>>>  Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. >>>> >>>>  Gracias >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Sébastien Bachollet >>>> >>>>  Président d'honneur - Isoc France >>>> >>>>  sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr >>>> >>>>  www.egeni.org >>>> >>>>  www.isoc.fr >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  * La version française est ci-dessous >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  *La versión española está abajo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Dear All, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group >>>> with >>>>  the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for >>>> the >>>>  selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for >>>>  wide-spread comment early in January 2010. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for >>>>  review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. >>>> The >>> >>>  > Œportal page¹ is available at: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the >>>>  Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large >>>>  Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle >>>> will >>>>  be sent shortly). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make >>>> your >>>>  comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward >>>> this >>>>  message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on >>>> the >>>>  Director White Paper as widely as possible. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  ** >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Cher tous, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe >>>> de >>>>  la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le >>>>  choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le >>>>  commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et >>>> franc >>>>  pour la revue.  Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire >>>> aux >>>>  pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : >>>> >>>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter >>>> leurs >>>>  observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel >>>> de >>>>  la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les >>>> >>>>  27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de >>>> l'ONU. >>>> >>>>  Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki >>>> utilisant >>>>  le " ; comment" ; bouton. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre >>>> à ce >>>>  message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des >>>>  commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme >>>> possible. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Cordialment, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  ** >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Estimado todos, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un >>>>  pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso >>>>  propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN >>>> que >>>>  se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y >>>> el >>>>  franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los >>>>  próximos días. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en >>>> las >>>>  páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: >>>> >>>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto >>>> al >>>>  director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en >>>> el >>>>  proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero >>>> de >>>>  2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. >>>> >>>>  Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando >>>> el >>>>  " comment" botón. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a >>>> este >>>>  mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los >>>>  comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea >>>>  posible. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Respetos, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn >>>> Vernon, >>>>  Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org >>>> >>>>  website: www.atlarge.icann.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>  > >>>> >>>>  To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> >>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  For all list information and functions, see: >>>> >>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>>  ____________________________________________________________ >>>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>  To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>>  For all list information and functions, see: >>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ________________________________________________ >>> >>> >>> Rui Correia >>> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >>> Angola Liaison Consultant >>> 2 Cutten St >>> Horison >>> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >>> South Africa >>> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >>> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >>> _______________ >>> áâãçéêíóôõúç >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >      __________________________________________________________________________________ > See what's on at the movies in your area. Find out now: http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/ > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Tue Jan 12 23:52:01 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:52:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] Haiti Message-ID: <808a83f61001122052w128fe544u689e3548873e5c8a@mail.gmail.com> Say a prayer for our brothers & sisters in Haiti - they just got an IXP going ... now this ... some donation and other relief resources can be found here http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=55157 Can we do anything to help? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Tue Jan 12 23:56:59 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:56:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Haiti In-Reply-To: <808a83f61001122052w128fe544u689e3548873e5c8a@mail.gmail.com> References: <808a83f61001122052w128fe544u689e3548873e5c8a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <808a83f61001122056n5059862boada832becd1689a9@mail.gmail.com> The power of the Internet and Web 2.0 ... Twitter feeds are providing rich sources of info ... this site has even more donation links and rapidly growing links to Facebook and other Social Media dealing with the Haitian crisis http://www.whatgives.com/2010/01/12/helping-haiti/ On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google < tracyhackshaw at gmail.com> wrote: > Say a prayer for our brothers & sisters in Haiti - they just got an IXP > going ... now this ... some donation and other relief resources can be found > here > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=55157 > > Can we do anything to help? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 13 05:27:43 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:27:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google to stop censoring in China, may pull out Message-ID: Of interest, if you've not seen... http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10433538-265.html?tag=nl.e498 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 13 06:29:05 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:29:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Haiti In-Reply-To: <808a83f61001122056n5059862boada832becd1689a9@mail.gmail.com> References: <808a83f61001122052w128fe544u689e3548873e5c8a@mail.gmail.com> <808a83f61001122056n5059862boada832becd1689a9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: This does, however, also point to the continuing value of the "old" technology - the vhf radio that we always used to depend on in the Caribbean when disaster struck. That seems to have been the medium for some of the very first information to get to the outside world. If anyone receives news about people - for example Max Larsen who presented a paper in Egypt or Stephane Bruno who worked with the IXP or Raymond Noel but lots of others - please share. Deirdre 2010/1/13 Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google : > The power of the Internet and Web 2.0 ... Twitter feeds are providing rich > sources of info ... this site has even more donation links and rapidly > growing links to Facebook and other Social Media dealing with the Haitian > crisis http://www.whatgives.com/2010/01/12/helping-haiti/ > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google > wrote: >> >> Say a prayer for our brothers & sisters in Haiti - they just got an IXP >> going ... now this ... some donation and other relief resources can be found >> here http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=55157 >> Can we do anything to help? > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 gpaque at gmail.com Wed Jan 13 09:03:34 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:33:34 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC Written Contribution for IGF, deadline Jan 15 Message-ID: <4B4DD2B6.8090101@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Wed Jan 13 09:34:42 2010 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:34:42 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC Written Contribution for IGF, deadline Jan 15 In-Reply-To: <4B4DD2B6.8090101@gmail.com> References: <4B4DD2B6.8090101@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ca4162f1001130634q66f445ecida59a6db611d991e@mail.gmail.com> that's ok for me Ginger, as we are in a harry. please send the IRP DC statement as soon as you can, in order to read it and send opinions. Thanksa lot. best, Roxana 2010/1/13 Ginger Paque > Hello everyone, and the best of wishes for 2010. > > Fouad recently pointed out that the work of the IGC coordinators is to > facilitate and help the IGC to work towards consensus. Jeremy and I cannot > dictate what the group should do, as of course you all know. > > I do not perceive a move towards an IGC written statement for January 15th, > so I would appreciate reading your opinions on whether to ask the IRP DC if > we can sign on supporting their statement, which looks very much in line > with IGC principles. I will post it here as soon as it comes out. > Discussions late last year reminded us that one of the functions of the IGC > is to support the initiatives of member organizations when appropriate and > agreed, and I think this may be one of those occasions. > > In general, what do you think? > > Then perhaps we can give Jeremy and others time to prepare a statement for > the OC in February, which is very soon anyway. > > Thanks everyone. > Best, Ginger > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 13 12:18:58 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:18:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC Written Contribution for IGF, deadline Jan 15 In-Reply-To: <4ca4162f1001130634q66f445ecida59a6db611d991e@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B4DD2B6.8090101@gmail.com>,<4ca4162f1001130634q66f445ecida59a6db611d991e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4CD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Ginger, I agree and also agree the IRP statement (draft) is worthy of support from IGC. And timely. Lee _______________________________________ From: Roxana Goldstein [goldstein.roxana at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 9:34 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Written Contribution for IGF, deadline Jan 15 that's ok for me Ginger, as we are in a harry. please send the IRP DC statement as soon as you can, in order to read it and send opinions. Thanksa lot. best, Roxana 2010/1/13 Ginger Paque > Hello everyone, and the best of wishes for 2010. Fouad recently pointed out that the work of the IGC coordinators is to facilitate and help the IGC to work towards consensus. Jeremy and I cannot dictate what the group should do, as of course you all know. I do not perceive a move towards an IGC written statement for January 15th, so I would appreciate reading your opinions on whether to ask the IRP DC if we can sign on supporting their statement, which looks very much in line with IGC principles. I will post it here as soon as it comes out. Discussions late last year reminded us that one of the functions of the IGC is to support the initiatives of member organizations when appropriate and agreed, and I think this may be one of those occasions. In general, what do you think? Then perhaps we can give Jeremy and others time to prepare a statement for the OC in February, which is very soon anyway. Thanks everyone. Best, Ginger ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 13 12:36:48 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:36:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] Our IGF survey results Message-ID: <27DC5EA3-6E77-4936-83F2-DDFBAFAE166B@ciroap.org> I am back online at last. I apologise for my inconvenient absence, which has made it harder for us to meet the 15 January deadline for written contributions on the next phase for the IGF that will be reflected in the synthesis paper for the February consultations. However, here I am posting the results of the online survey. In the next email, I will post a draft statement based on these results. There were 36 responses to the survey; 26 full, and 10 partial (since no questions were compulsory). This amounts to about a quarter of our membership, which isn't bad at all in my opinion. I didn't activate the strictest level of checking for duplicate entries, because this was not a formal poll. However, there are no obvious signs of survey stacking. Anyway, without further ado, here is a summary of the responses: 1. Is the Secretariat provided by the United Nations? - All but three respondents who answered the question said YES. This seems like a rough consensus. 2. To whom is the Secretariat directly accountable? - We had a roughly even split between those who thought it should be accountable to the UN Secretary General, as present, and those who thought that it should be accountable to the MAG. Thus, there is no consensus on this point, but there is what I would call a "significant" minority view in favour of change, which might be worthy of note. 3. How is the MAG (by whatever name) selected? - A large majority of respondents felt that the stakeholders, either directly or through a nominating committee, should select MAG members. However, six respondents felt that, as now, the Secretariat should do so (the "black box" approach). 4. How is the MAG composed? - All but two respondents who answered this question felt that there should be either full equality, or greater equality than at present, in the number of stakeholder group representatives on the MAG. This seems like a pretty strong "rough consensus" for change. 5. Whom do the MAG members represent? - The majority felt that they should represent their stakeholder groups - more than three times as many as those who thought that they should represent themselves. So this is a fairly strong result, though falling short of consensus. 6. By whom should the MAG be chaired? - About twice as many thought it should appoint its own chair/s, as those who thought the Secretariat should appoint the chair. However, since there were a good number holding each point of view, it does not seem we are likely to develop a consensus on this point. 7. How should the MAG make decisions? - Again, we do not have a strong agreement here. As many thought that voting should be used as thought that there should be a consensus between individuals. Slightly more popular (by five) was the view that the consensus should be between stakeholder groups rather than between individuals. 8. What should be the transparency of MAG deliberations? - A majority of those who responded sought an improvement in the level of transparency, to include at least a public mailing list, and anonymised transcripts of discussions (and within this group, a majority would have gone further and required recordings or full transcripts). So whilst there is not a consensus on this, it is a significant view perhaps worth recording. 9. Who is responsible for determining the IGF's structure and processes? - Five thought that the Secretariat (or "the UN" in one case) should do so. Everyone else who answered thought this was a task for the MAG or the open consultation meetings. I feel that perhaps we can write some wording reflecting this that would meet with rough consensus. 10. Who is responsible for writing (beyond just compiling) briefing documents? - No clear agreement here. As many thought that the Secretariat should do so as those who thought it should be a more democratic procedure. 11. Who is responsible for writing (beyond just compiling) written outputs? - A very similar result was obtained as to the preceding question. In other words, there is no likely consensus here. 12. How can such outputs be expressed in a case where a consensus exists? - A sizable majority of those who responded, though not to the rough consensus level, thought that recommendations, declarations or statements would be appropriate. Seven thought that we should just have a Chairman's summary or similar. I will draft some wording to fairly reflect this result. 13. How is intersessional preparatory work of the IGF to be performed? - Most thought the IGF should have online tools and intersessional meetings to enable an ongoing work program to be undertaken. A lesser number (six) thought it was sufficient to rely on the dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other working groups that might be created for this purpose). However only one said there was no need for any intersessional work. So we clearly have a rough consensus on that already. 14. How are outputs of the dynamic coalitions or working groups transmitted to the IGF after consensus is reached on them internally? - A similar result, with only one respondent dissenting from the view that the dynamic coalitions or working groups should put their output before the IGF at large. More people thought that this should be done via the MAG than those who thought it should be done directly to the IGF in plenary session. 15. What criteria apply to the recognition of these groups? - Everyone who responded thought that their membership should be open and their processes democratic. Most thought their composition should also be multi-stakeholder, and hardly anyone thought there should be a limit of one group per issue area. This represents an existing rough consensus on the first two points. 16. Who is responsible for assessing the consensus of the IGF at large? - No strong agreement here, though the most popular answer was that the MAG should do so. 17. What working processes are used to promote such consensus? - About three-quarters of those who responded thought that either small group moderated democratic deliberation, or something like roundtables, should be used. However we do not have strong agreement about the assessment of the consensus of the IGF, so I am not going to use this result in our statement. 18. How are outputs of the IGF transmitted to external institutions? - Again, about three quarters of those who responded said that its outputs should be transmitted via the MAG and/or the media, with other answers including "Secretariat publications", "summary statements", and "the Web site". 19. How is the agenda for the IGF set? - Only one said that the Secretariat should do so, and one said the MAG acting alone should. Everyone else who responded felt that the stakeholders, either directly or through the filter of the MAG, should set the IGF's agenda. This is a rough consensus answer. 20. How are workshops selected? - An equal number thought that the topics should be pre-selected during the agenda-setting phase, as those who thought that workshop proposals should be invited, either with or without duplicates being eliminated by the MAG. Thus there is no easy room for consensus here. So, I'm pleased that the survey suggests that there is quite a broad agreement already on some basic reforms for the IGF. In case anyone would like to audit the results, I can give you an administrative login to the survey site so that you can review them in detail (including nice graphs and raw files you can download into a statistical program). -- 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 gpaque at gmail.com Wed Jan 13 12:37:05 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 13:07:05 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC Written Contribution for IGF, deadline Jan 15 In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4CD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4B4DD2B6.8090101@gmail.com>,<4ca4162f1001130634q66f445ecida59a6db611d991e@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4CD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B4E04C1.50008@gmail.com> Thanks, Roxana and Lee for your emails. Everyone... I have copied below the thread from the IRP Mailing list, that refers to their progress on a statement for the IGF OC for Feb., to be submitted as a written contribution by January 15th. This gives you an idea of where they are going. I will post the final draft when it is posted on the IRP list. I am not suggesting that we opine as to the content of the IRP statement. If anyone wants to do that, they should do so on the IRP list. All we will do is either support their statement or not, depending on IGC consensus. Thanks, gp [Fwd: Re: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010] Dear Lisa and all, I'm comfortable with all the suggestions to the statement presented so far, but I feel deeply concerned with the adoption of the term "users" as a general category. Who are the everyday Internet users? I think we should stress the importance of assuring diversity of voices, of regional and linguistical representation, the participation of underepresented groups, etc, etc, but I see the proposal of bringing the "everyday internet users" to the IGF quite dangerous. Besides, I guess everyone who goes to the IGF is an everyday internet user. best, Graciela Lisa Horner escreveu: > Everyone, please send your ideas through for the Open Consultations. We > should focus on practical suggestions for the 2010 agenda. It's really > important that we get our ideas in now, before the agenda is agreed and > it's too late. We need your ideas NOW as we need to draft a statement > and get it submitted by the 15th. > > I guess if no one has anything to add, we should keep it short and > succinct, focusing on human rights rather than the process issues. > > In addition to my previous comments, I'd like to add another... > > The IGF (including regional and international) needs to find ways of > better involving everyday internet users in the discussions, and of > improving participation from developing countries. This is particularly > important if we are to uphold human rights in and through IG - users > need to know what their rights are and how to claim them, as well as > contribute to the formation of policies that affect them. > > In terms of practical suggestions of how this might happen.... > A main session on what users need from the IGF, including discussion of > how to better include users in any future incarnations of the IGF? > Session organizers agreeing to consult with users, and explaining how > they have on feedback forms/in session reports? > National IGFs formalizing participation from users, including outreach > and information campaign? > Setting up some kind of portal/interface for everyday users to explain > ideas and needs? > More focus on the discussion RE funding for a wider range of > participants. > > Any thoughts? > > Lisa > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: M I Franklin [mailto:cos02mf at gold.ac.uk] > Sent: 11 January 2010 10:29 > To: Lisa Horner; irp > Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010 > > Dear All > > Thanks Lisa for these comments. > > Anyone else have anything to add? > > Cheers > MF > > --On 08 January 2010 11:30 +0000 Lisa Horner > > wrote: > > >> Thanks for taking the lead with this Marianne. Some very quick notes >> below...would be good to hear people's thoughts and have a discussion >> about the options... >> >> 1) Contributions that take stock of last year's IGF in Sharm el Sheikh >> >> - Overall, the meeting was well organized. I think things have >> > improved > >> each year. >> - Remote participation seemed to work well. However, workshop >> organizers weren't given much support on how to use it properly and >> technicians weren't always on hand. More information in advance would >> be useful. >> - A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary sessions reaffirmed the >> importance of upholding human rights in the internet age. The >> > challenge > >> now is to focus on how that can actually be achieved in practice, and >> what roles different stakeholders can/should play. >> - Discussions, especially in plenary, seemed to be distracted by the >> issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. (does anyone >> have an update on the status of those discussions?) >> - Links between the main sessions and the workshops still weren't >> > great. > >> - Main sessions based around the "traditional" categories of openness, >> diversity etc felt a bit stale. The new themes introduced were >> refreshing. >> - main sessions without a large number of panelists worked better, but >> we need to find better ways of ensuring that wider plenary discussion >> remains coherent, dynamic and inclusive. >> >> 2) Suggestions for the agenda and format of the Vilnius meeting. >> >> - Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, could >> > more > >> specific questions or policy dilemmas be proposed in advance, that >> people can debate in advance and suggest specific solutions to? >> >> - Related to the previous point, having sessions that look at a "human >> rights agenda" or "development agenda for IG" I think would be more >> useful than broad themes such as openness and diversity. I think >> > these > >> debates have been had in previous open consultations, but I haven't >> > been > >> able to keep up with everything...does anyone have any insights on >> > this? > >> As a coalition, we should probably discuss whether it's realistic to >> propose a human rights main session...could we propose a development >> main session, and then push for HRs to be a major part of that. >> > Should > >> we be proposing development/HRs as an overarching theme again? >> >> - Again related to previous point, the coalition should propose that >> > it > >> participates in the organization of the main session related to >> "openness" or development/HRs/Privacy. >> >> - Can we suggest ways of linking the national, regional and >> international IGFs better together? It would probably be useful if >> > this > >> could be done in a thematic way, for example with feedback from each >> > IGF > >> on "openness" being collected beforehand and reported back in the >> openness session. Would require work though - no resources to do it?? >> >> - Can we suggest ways of linking the workshops better to the main >> sessions? There was no formal feedback session last year, and >> > workshop > >> organizers weren't given a formal opportunity to feedback in the main >> sessions as far as I'm aware. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf >> > Of > >> M I Franklin >> Sent: 07 January 2010 18:50 >> To: irp >> Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010 >> >> Dear All >> >> Greetings. To follow on from Max's speed-of-light sending out of the >> minutes of today's IRP phone-conference, this email is a call for >> contributions to a statement from the DC as part of the open >> consultations >> in preparation for Vilnius later this year. >> >> Fouad's invitation for ideas and comments for the MAG meetings is >> > pasted > >> below fyi so the DC statement also contributes to this side of the >> process; >> point 4 in particular. >> >> In short, the IRP statement can cover: >> >> >> Time is short, so we need your comments by Monday at the latest. I >> > will > >> then cobble up a first draft for one more round. The statement has to >> > be > >> ready to go by 15 January. >> >> All input welcome on either or both of the two aspects above. >> >> Thanks. >> ciao >> MF >> >> --On Thursday, January 07, 2010 6:08 +0500 Fouad Bajwa >> wrote: >> >> >>> Dear Friends, >>> >>> As you are all aware about the IGF Open Consultation and MAG meetings >>> in February 2010, I would like to request those people that cannot >>> participate but would like to be heard to forward their interventions >>> so that we can read and extend them on the floor during the Open >>> Consultation. I further request statements to be brief, concise and >>> > to > >>> the point as the floor has to be passed on to the wide participation >>> during the consultation. >>> >>> As for the MAG, we have a strong Civil Society MAG group including >>> myself. The MAG is responsible for suggesting the design/organization >>> of the IGF2010. IF you have concerns regarding the programming of the >>> IGF2010, you can forward your statements for intervention to me so >>> that they can be shared amongst our other team members. Once again, >>> the requirement for being brief, concise and to the point applies >>> > here > >>> as well! >>> >>> Ideas for interventions can involve statements such as but not >>> > limited > >> to: >> >>> 1. Issues surfaced during the IGF2009 in Sharam. >>> 2. Developing Country Participation/Inclusion Issues. >>> 3. Main Program / Main Theme Issues for IGF2010. >>> 4. Human Rights Issues/Rights on the Internet Issues. >>> 5. Development Agenda for Internet Governance Issues. >>> 6. Youth and Gender Participation Issues. >>> >>> For your convenience and live correspondence, I will be available on >>> Skype (ID:fouadbajwa , kindly don't forget to introduce yourself >>> please while adding me) throughout the three days of meetings (1 day >>> open consultation + 2 days MAG meetings). >>> >>> I look forward to assisting your interventions. >>> >>> -- >>> Regards. >>> -------------------------- >>> Fouad Bajwa >>> Advisor & Researcher >>> ICT4D & Internet Governance >>> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) >>> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) >>> My Blog: Internet's Governance >>> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >>> Follow my Tweets: >>> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >>> MAG Interview: >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> >>> > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri > >> g >> >>> htsandprinciples.org >>> >> >> Dr Marianne Franklin >> Reader >> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program >> Media & Communications >> Goldsmiths, University of London >> New Cross >> London SE14 6NW >> United Kingdom >> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072 >> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616 >> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk >> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php >> >> > http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-me > >> dia.php >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> >> > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri > >> ghtsandprinciples.org >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> >> > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri > g > >> htsandprinciples.org >> > > > > Dr Marianne Franklin > Reader > Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program > Media & Communications > Goldsmiths, University of London > New Cross > London SE14 6NW > United Kingdom > Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072 > Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616 > email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk > http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php > http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-me > dia.php > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org > > -- _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org Lee W McKnight wrote: > Ginger, > > I agree and also agree the IRP statement (draft) is worthy of support from IGC. And timely. > > Lee > _______________________________________ > From: Roxana Goldstein [goldstein.roxana at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 9:34 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Written Contribution for IGF, deadline Jan 15 > > that's ok for me Ginger, as we are in a harry. please send the IRP DC statement as soon as you can, in order to read it and send opinions. Thanksa lot. > best, > Roxana > > > > 2010/1/13 Ginger Paque > > Hello everyone, and the best of wishes for 2010. > > Fouad recently pointed out that the work of the IGC coordinators is to facilitate and help the IGC to work towards consensus. Jeremy and I cannot dictate what the group should do, as of course you all know. > > I do not perceive a move towards an IGC written statement for January 15th, so I would appreciate reading your opinions on whether to ask the IRP DC if we can sign on supporting their statement, which looks very much in line with IGC principles. I will post it here as soon as it comes out. Discussions late last year reminded us that one of the functions of the IGC is to support the initiatives of member organizations when appropriate and agreed, and I think this may be one of those occasions. > > In general, what do you think? > > Then perhaps we can give Jeremy and others time to prepare a statement for the OC in February, which is very soon anyway. > > Thanks everyone. > Best, Ginger > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 13 13:35:19 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:35:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the IGF Message-ID: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> Below is my suggestion for a short statement based on the survey results that I just posted to the list. If we cannot obtain consensus on this statement swiftly, then we will have more time between now and 9 February to keep working. However, since it is a fairly "minimalist" statement, I hope that reaching a rough consensus soon will be possible. If initial responses to the statement below are broadly favourable, I will ask Ginger if she agrees that we can quickly make a consensus call, which according to the Charter gives the group another 48 hours for discussion before the coordinators declare whether a rough consensus has been achieved. Whilst this cuts it fine for the 15 January deadline, we will be able to ask the Secretariat for a short extension if it seems likely that a consensus can be reached. --- begins --- The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a global coalition of civil society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN. However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best assured. Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of accountability to the MAG. Others feel that it would improve the MAG's accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. But one question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular stakeholder groups as it is at present. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations publicly. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating to the IGF's structure and processes. Many of the IGC's members believe that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions about the future structure and processes of the IGF. A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. Many of our members believe that this should include the development of an ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. -- 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 david.souter at runbox.com Wed Jan 13 13:48:42 2010 From: david.souter at runbox.com (David Souter) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:48:42 -0000 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the IGF In-Reply-To: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <08b201ca9481$07c2cf20$17486d60$@souter@runbox.com> Dear Jeremy: I think there is a question here about IGC membership and how the IGC presents itself. According to the Charter, "the members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the same rights and duties." Can it really, therefore, introduce itself as "a global coalition of civil society and non governmental organisations and individuals", as in the preamble to this draft? If asked, which "civil society and non governmental organisations" would we say are part of the IGC? David Souter Message sent by: David Souter Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, University of Strathclyde Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics Associate of the International Institute for Sustainable Development 145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD (+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line) (+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line) From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: 13 January 2010 18:35 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the IGF Below is my suggestion for a short statement based on the survey results that I just posted to the list. If we cannot obtain consensus on this statement swiftly, then we will have more time between now and 9 February to keep working. However, since it is a fairly "minimalist" statement, I hope that reaching a rough consensus soon will be possible. If initial responses to the statement below are broadly favourable, I will ask Ginger if she agrees that we can quickly make a consensus call, which according to the Charter gives the group another 48 hours for discussion before the coordinators declare whether a rough consensus has been achieved. Whilst this cuts it fine for the 15 January deadline, we will be able to ask the Secretariat for a short extension if it seems likely that a consensus can be reached. --- begins --- The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a global coalition of civil society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN's Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN. However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best assured. Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of accountability to the MAG. Others feel that it would improve the MAG's accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. But one question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular stakeholder groups as it is at present. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations publicly. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating to the IGF's structure and processes. Many of the IGC's members believe that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions about the future structure and processes of the IGF. A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. Many of our members believe that this should include the development of an ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. -- 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 Wed Jan 13 14:13:57 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:13:57 +1100 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> Message-ID: HI Jeremy, a couple of small comments ­ but generally I support the statement. >But one question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards >particular stakeholder groups as it is at present. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more >transparent - for example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations publicly. I think we have discussed the second mailing list concept before and there is very little evidence from other organisations that have done this that the open mailing list will get used. People default to the closed list, I have seen this happen in a few organisations. I would leave that example out. >A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this responsibility >falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected >in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. It wasn¹t just civil society ­ the concept had wide support from other stakeholders including some governments as well ­ I would say ³civil society and other stakeholders² From: Jeremy Malcolm Reply-To: , Jeremy Malcolm Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:35:19 +0000 To: Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the IGF Below is my suggestion for a short statement based on the survey results that I just posted to the list. If we cannot obtain consensus on this statement swiftly, then we will have more time between now and 9 February to keep working. However, since it is a fairly "minimalist" statement, I hope that reaching a rough consensus soon will be possible. If initial responses to the statement below are broadly favourable, I will ask Ginger if she agrees that we can quickly make a consensus call, which according to the Charter gives the group another 48 hours for discussion before the coordinators declare whether a rough consensus has been achieved. Whilst this cuts it fine for the 15 January deadline, we will be able to ask the Secretariat for a short extension if it seems likely that a consensus can be reached. --- begins --- The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a global coalition of civil society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org . The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN. However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best assured. Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of accountability to the MAG. Others feel that it would improve the MAG's accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. But one question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular stakeholder groups as it is at present. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations publicly. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating to the IGF's structure and processes. Many of the IGC's members believe that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions about the future structure and processes of the IGF. A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. Many of our members believe that this should include the development of an ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 13 14:24:09 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:24:09 +0300 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <3001387034883581355@unknownmsgid> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <3001387034883581355@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: David, On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:48 PM, David Souter wrote: > Dear Jeremy: > > > > I think there is a question here about IGC membership and how the IGC > presents itself. > > > > According to the Charter, “the members of the IGC are individuals, acting in > personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus.  All members > are equal and have the same rights and duties.” > > > > Can it really, therefore, introduce itself as “a global coalition of civil > society and non governmental organisations and individuals”, as in the > preamble to this draft? > I also object to this (and to a variety of other things in the statement). The full sentence reads: "The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a global coalition of civil society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process." I thought the caucus was about Internet Governance and not about talking about Internet Governance. Aligning ourselves solely with the IGF is tantamount to saying we don't really DO Internet Governance. As discussed previously (ad nauseum) I have a more generous definition of CS than some on this list, so I don't think that the MAG is "slanted towards particular stakeholder groups". Nor do I think that the IGF "ought to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs". I think the national and regional IGFs are the "intersessional work program". In addition, I hardly think that your survey methodology (already critiqued by others) is the basis for even "rough" consensus. On the whole, I have to say no to this statement. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Jan 13 14:32:46 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:32:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B4E1FDE.8010608@wzb.eu> Hi Jeremy, thank you for drafting this statement. Parts of it I support, others I don't agree with or think they are based on wrong assumptions. Would it make sense to briefly discuss it paragraph by paragraph to find out which elements find general support? jeanette Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Below is my suggestion for a short statement based on the survey results > that I just posted to the list. If we cannot obtain consensus on this > statement swiftly, then we will have more time between now and 9 > February to keep working. However, since it is a fairly "minimalist" > statement, I hope that reaching a rough consensus soon will be possible. > > If initial responses to the statement below are broadly favourable, I > will ask Ginger if she agrees that we can quickly make a consensus call, > which according to the Charter gives the group another 48 hours for > discussion before the coordinators declare whether a rough consensus has > been achieved. Whilst this cuts it fine for the 15 January deadline, we > will be able to ask the Secretariat for a short extension if it seems > likely that a consensus can be reached. > > --- begins --- > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a global coalition of civil > society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively > involved the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during > the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our > mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for > representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance > processes. More about our coalition can be found at > http://www.igcaucus.org . > > The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a > multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public > policy issues. However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be > extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we > believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of > incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these > suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus > for example, we believe it should remain situated within the United > Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN. > > However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental > organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are > adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. > Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best > assured. Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of > accountability to the MAG. Others feel that it would improve the MAG's > accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder > groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. > > But one question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the > composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the > stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular > stakeholder groups as it is at present. Many also believe that the > stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG > members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for > example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing > list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations > publicly. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation > of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating > to the IGF's structure and processes. Many of the IGC's members believe > that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, > ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions > about the future structure and processes of the IGF. > > A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the > accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the > substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this > responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that the very > strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society > as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not > reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. > > The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation > towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount > to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our > members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs > take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to > relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through > publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. > > Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to > maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work > program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. Many of > our members believe that this should include the development of an > ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through > online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. > > Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can > be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working > groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a > better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their > outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to > set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, > democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, > which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from > civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender > representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage > with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement > in 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect > consumer rights around the world. > _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_ > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Jan 13 14:59:05 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:59:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <4B4E1FDE.8010608@wzb.eu> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org>,<4B4E1FDE.8010608@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4D2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I agree with Jeanette's suggested paragraph by paragraph approach. 9 February is probably a more plausible target. Lee ________________________________________ From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:32 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the Hi Jeremy, thank you for drafting this statement. Parts of it I support, others I don't agree with or think they are based on wrong assumptions. Would it make sense to briefly discuss it paragraph by paragraph to find out which elements find general support? jeanette Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Below is my suggestion for a short statement based on the survey results > that I just posted to the list. If we cannot obtain consensus on this > statement swiftly, then we will have more time between now and 9 > February to keep working. However, since it is a fairly "minimalist" > statement, I hope that reaching a rough consensus soon will be possible. > > If initial responses to the statement below are broadly favourable, I > will ask Ginger if she agrees that we can quickly make a consensus call, > which according to the Charter gives the group another 48 hours for > discussion before the coordinators declare whether a rough consensus has > been achieved. Whilst this cuts it fine for the 15 January deadline, we > will be able to ask the Secretariat for a short extension if it seems > likely that a consensus can be reached. > > --- begins --- > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a global coalition of civil > society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively > involved the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during > the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our > mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for > representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance > processes. More about our coalition can be found at > http://www.igcaucus.org . > > The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a > multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public > policy issues. However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be > extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we > believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of > incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these > suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus > for example, we believe it should remain situated within the United > Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN. > > However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental > organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are > adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. > Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best > assured. Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of > accountability to the MAG. Others feel that it would improve the MAG's > accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder > groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. > > But one question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the > composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the > stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular > stakeholder groups as it is at present. Many also believe that the > stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG > members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for > example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing > list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations > publicly. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation > of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating > to the IGF's structure and processes. Many of the IGC's members believe > that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, > ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions > about the future structure and processes of the IGF. > > A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the > accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the > substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this > responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that the very > strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society > as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not > reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. > > The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation > towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount > to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our > members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs > take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to > relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through > publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. > > Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to > maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work > program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. Many of > our members believe that this should include the development of an > ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through > online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. > > Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can > be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working > groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a > better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their > outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to > set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, > democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, > which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from > civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender > representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage > with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > -- > > *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 jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Jan 13 15:11:29 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:11:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4D2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org>,<4B4E1FDE.8010608@wzb.eu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4D2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B4E28F1.3030702@wzb.eu> Ok, why don't we start right away. I leave out the intro, which can be improved later I think. The first substantial para is the following: The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN. I agree with the spirit of this paragraph but would suggest that we try to be a bit more specific with regard to "situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN" since the present wording would support a new arrangement within the UN. For example, under the auspices of the ITU. Perhaps we could say something to the effect that "the IGF, including its secretariat should remain situated within United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA". jeanette Lee W McKnight wrote: > I agree with Jeanette's suggested paragraph by paragraph approach. > > 9 February is probably a more plausible target. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:32 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm > Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the > > Hi Jeremy, thank you for drafting this statement. Parts of it I support, > others I don't agree with or think they are based on wrong assumptions. > Would it make sense to briefly discuss it paragraph by paragraph to find > out which elements find general support? > > jeanette > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Below is my suggestion for a short statement based on the survey results >> that I just posted to the list. If we cannot obtain consensus on this >> statement swiftly, then we will have more time between now and 9 >> February to keep working. However, since it is a fairly "minimalist" >> statement, I hope that reaching a rough consensus soon will be possible. >> >> If initial responses to the statement below are broadly favourable, I >> will ask Ginger if she agrees that we can quickly make a consensus call, >> which according to the Charter gives the group another 48 hours for >> discussion before the coordinators declare whether a rough consensus has >> been achieved. Whilst this cuts it fine for the 15 January deadline, we >> will be able to ask the Secretariat for a short extension if it seems >> likely that a consensus can be reached. >> >> --- begins --- >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a global coalition of civil >> society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively >> involved the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during >> the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our >> mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for >> representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance >> processes. More about our coalition can be found at >> http://www.igcaucus.org . >> >> The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a >> multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public >> policy issues. However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be >> extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we >> believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of >> incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these >> suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus >> for example, we believe it should remain situated within the United >> Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN. >> >> However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental >> organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are >> adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. >> Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best >> assured. Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of >> accountability to the MAG. Others feel that it would improve the MAG's >> accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder >> groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. >> >> But one question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the >> composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the >> stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular >> stakeholder groups as it is at present. Many also believe that the >> stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG >> members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for >> example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing >> list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations >> publicly. >> >> One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation >> of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating >> to the IGF's structure and processes. Many of the IGC's members believe >> that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, >> ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions >> about the future structure and processes of the IGF. >> >> A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the >> accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the >> substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this >> responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that the very >> strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society >> as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not >> reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. >> >> The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation >> towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount >> to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our >> members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs >> take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to >> relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through >> publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. >> >> Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to >> maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work >> program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. Many of >> our members believe that this should include the development of an >> ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through >> online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. >> >> Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can >> be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working >> groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a >> better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their >> outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to >> set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, >> democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. >> >> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, >> which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from >> civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender >> representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage >> with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. >> >> -- >> >> *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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 13 15:18:58 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:18:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <3001387034883581355@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <00D8C04A-2172-4FF0-9F8A-1F4732472F6B@ciroap.org> On 13/01/2010, at 7:24 PM, McTim wrote: > David, > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:48 PM, David Souter wrote: >> Dear Jeremy: >> >> I think there is a question here about IGC membership and how the IGC >> presents itself. >> >> According to the Charter, “the members of the IGC are individuals, acting in >> personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members >> are equal and have the same rights and duties.” >> >> Can it really, therefore, introduce itself as “a global coalition of civil >> society and non governmental organisations and individuals”, as in the >> preamble to this draft? FWIW, this preamble was taken verbatim from a previous statement made in June last year. But even so, please suggest specific improvements. -- 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Jan 13 16:09:03 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:09:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <4B4E1FDE.8010608@wzb.eu> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <4B4E1FDE.8010608@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B644B4B-BF2B-4927-A511-E4B114DECC61@graduateinstitute.ch> On Jan 13, 2010, at 8:32 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Jeremy, thank you for drafting this statement. Parts of it I support, others I don't agree with or think they are based on wrong assumptions. > Would it make sense to briefly discuss it paragraph by paragraph to find out which elements find general support? I agree with Jeanette's points and suggestion of para by para discussion (of course, as with any other statement we've ever done, we aren't limited to these paragraphs if people want to suggest other language/topics). 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 david.souter at runbox.com Wed Jan 13 17:09:04 2010 From: david.souter at runbox.com (David Souter) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:09:04 -0000 Subject: [governance] Draft statement - preamble In-Reply-To: <00D8C04A-2172-4FF0-9F8A-1F4732472F6B@ciroap.org> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <3001387034883581355@unknownmsgid> <00D8C04A-2172-4FF0-9F8A-1F4732472F6B@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <0e4301ca949d$04ed0920$0ec71b60$@souter@runbox.com> My point about the preamble is simply this: If the IGC is an association of individuals, it should not represent itself as a coalition of organisations - a description which it could not sustain if it were challenged. I would suggest something like "an association of individuals in civil society who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF." But there are many formulations that would work. David Souter Message sent by: David Souter Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, University of Strathclyde Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics Associate of the International Institute for Sustainable Development   145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD (+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line) (+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line) -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: 13 January 2010 20:19 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the On 13/01/2010, at 7:24 PM, McTim wrote: > David, > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:48 PM, David Souter wrote: >> Dear Jeremy: >> >> I think there is a question here about IGC membership and how the IGC >> presents itself. >> >> According to the Charter, “the members of the IGC are individuals, acting in >> personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members >> are equal and have the same rights and duties.” >> >> Can it really, therefore, introduce itself as “a global coalition of civil >> society and non governmental organisations and individuals”, as in the >> preamble to this draft? FWIW, this preamble was taken verbatim from a previous statement made in June last year. But even so, please suggest specific improvements. -- 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 13 21:48:40 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:48:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <4B4E28F1.3030702@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <232209.84381.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Mandatory language is appropriate:  "the IGF, including its secretariat {should } shall remain situated within United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA)" --- On Wed, 1/13/10, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: From: Jeanette Hofmann Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Lee W McKnight" Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2010, 8:11 PM Ok, why don't we start right away. I leave out the intro, which can be improved later I think. The first substantial para is the following: The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.  However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006.  None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN. I agree with the spirit of this paragraph but would suggest that we try to be a bit more specific with regard to "situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN" since the present wording would support a new arrangement within the UN. For example, under the auspices of the ITU.  Perhaps we could say something to the effect that "the IGF, including its secretariat should remain situated within United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA". jeanette Lee W McKnight wrote: > I agree with Jeanette's suggested paragraph by paragraph approach. > 9 February is probably a more plausible target. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:32 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm > Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the > > Hi Jeremy, thank you for drafting this statement. Parts of it I support, > others I don't agree with or think they are based on wrong assumptions. > Would it make sense to briefly discuss it paragraph by paragraph to find > out which elements find general support? > > jeanette > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Below is my suggestion for a short statement based on the survey results >> that I just posted to the list.  If we cannot obtain consensus on this >> statement swiftly, then we will have more time between now and 9 >> February to keep working.  However, since it is a fairly "minimalist" >> statement, I hope that reaching a rough consensus soon will be possible. >> >> If initial responses to the statement below are broadly favourable, I >> will ask Ginger if she agrees that we can quickly make a consensus call, >> which according to the Charter gives the group another 48 hours for >> discussion before the coordinators declare whether a rough consensus has >> been achieved.  Whilst this cuts it fine for the 15 January deadline, we >> will be able to ask the Secretariat for a short extension if it seems >> likely that a consensus can be reached. >> >> --- begins --- >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a global coalition of civil >> society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively >> involved the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during >> the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our >> mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for >> representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance >> processes. More about our coalition can be found at >> http://www.igcaucus.org . >> >> The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a >> multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public >> policy issues.  However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be >> extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we >> believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of >> incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006.  None of these >> suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus >> for example, we believe it should remain situated within the United >> Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN. >> >> However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental >> organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are >> adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. >>  Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best >> assured.  Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of >> accountability to the MAG.  Others feel that it would improve the MAG's >> accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder >> groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. >> >> But one question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the >> composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the >> stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular >> stakeholder groups as it is at present.  Many also believe that the >> stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG >> members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for >> example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing >> list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations >> publicly. >> >> One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation >> of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating >> to the IGF's structure and processes.  Many of the IGC's members believe >> that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, >> ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions >> about the future structure and processes of the IGF. >> >> A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the >> accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the >> substantive agenda of IGF meetings.  Although at present this >> responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that the very >> strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society >> as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not >> reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. >> >> The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation >> towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount >> to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our >> members would support outputs of such kinds).  Whatever form its outputs >> take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to >> relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through >> publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. >> >> Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to >> maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work >> program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting.  Many of >> our members believe that this should include the development of an >> ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through >> online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. >> >> Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can >> be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working >> groups).  In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a >> better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their >> outputs to the IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to begin to >> set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, >> democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. >> >> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, >> which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from >> civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender >> representation.  We look forward to continuing to constructively engage >> with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. >> >> -- >> >> *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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 13 21:53:35 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:53:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <89118.58319.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> As an advocate of open and noncensored membership and lists -- I still much agree with these statements, they are consistent with my understanding and my hopes: --- On Wed, 1/13/10, Ian Peter wrote: HI Jeremy, a couple of small comments – but generally I support the statement. I think we have discussed the second mailing list concept before and there is very little evidence from other organisations that have done this that the open mailing list will get used. People default to the closed list, I have seen this happen in a few organisations. I would leave that example out. It wasn’t just civil society – the concept had wide support from other stakeholders including some governments as well – I would say “civil society and other stakeholders” From: Jeremy Malcolm Reply-To: , Jeremy Malcolm Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:35:19 +0000 To: Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the IGF Below is my suggestion for a short statement based on the survey results that I just posted to the list.  If we cannot obtain consensus on this statement swiftly, then we will have more time between now and 9 February to keep working.  However, since it is a fairly "minimalist" statement, I hope that reaching a rough consensus soon will be possible. If initial responses to the statement below are broadly favourable, I will ask Ginger if she agrees that we can quickly make a consensus call, which according to the Charter gives the group another 48 hours for discussion before the coordinators declare whether a rough consensus has been achieved.  Whilst this cuts it fine for the 15 January deadline, we will be able to ask the Secretariat for a short extension if it seems likely that a consensus can be reached. --- begins --- The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a global coalition of civil society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org . The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.  However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006.  None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN. However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders.  Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best assured.  Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of accountability to the MAG.  Others feel that it would improve the MAG's accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. But one question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular stakeholder groups as it is at present.  Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations publicly. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating to the IGF's structure and processes.  Many of the IGC's members believe that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions about the future structure and processes of the IGF. A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings.  Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would support outputs of such kinds).  Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting.  Many of our members believe that this should include the development of an ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working groups).  In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation.  We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. -- 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 -----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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 13 22:14:41 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:14:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Draft statement - preamble In-Reply-To: <0e4301ca949d$04ed0920$0ec71b60$@souter@runbox.com> Message-ID: <866005.43232.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Point well spoken, I suggest:    "an association of individuals of the international civil society who are actively engaged in the foundations and formulation of internet governance and the IGF."   (I recognize this may be a bit at odds with McTims indicated belief that we are actively involved in governing, but maybe I am wrong) --- On Wed, 1/13/10, David Souter wrote: My point about the preamble is simply this:  If the IGC is an association of individuals, it should not represent itself as a coalition of organisations - a description which it could not sustain if it were challenged.  I would suggest something like "an association of individuals in civil society who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF."  But there are many formulations that would work. David Souter Message sent by: David Souter Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, University of Strathclyde Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics Associate of the International Institute for Sustainable Development   145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD (+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line) (+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line) -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: 13 January 2010 20:19 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the On 13/01/2010, at 7:24 PM, McTim wrote: > David, > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:48 PM, David Souter wrote: >> Dear Jeremy: >> >> I think there is a question here about IGC membership and how the IGC >> presents itself. >> >> According to the Charter, “the members of the IGC are individuals, acting in >> personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus.  All members >> are equal and have the same rights and duties.” >> >> Can it really, therefore, introduce itself as “a global coalition of civil >> society and non governmental organisations and individuals”, as in the >> preamble to this draft? FWIW, this preamble was taken verbatim from a previous statement made in June last year.  But even so, please suggest specific improvements. -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 13 22:58:47 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:58:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] Draft statement - preamble In-Reply-To: <866005.43232.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <866005.43232.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:14 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Point well spoken, I suggest: > > "an association of individuals of the international civil society who > are actively engaged in the foundations and formulation of internet > governance and the IGF." > > (I recognize this may be a bit at odds with McTims indicated belief that we > are actively involved in governing, but maybe I am wrong) > More of a belief that we SHOULD be involved in actual IG issues, but that we focus on meta-IG instead. -- 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 14 00:20:00 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 21:20:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Draft statement - preamble In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <242998.67600.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I think the "we" here is correct. Not only in the should but also in the "do". But I also see that as individuals and not as this cadre. It would be nice to think that we all "fellowship" here and then return better for it to our respective areas of contribution to governance.   It appears to me that this list influenced Avri in her chairing of the ICANN naming group. I know I have given advice how to work within some governance and without based upon knowledge gleened here. Also in the reverse it is true that my work against some governments and with others has influenced my contributions here. Most academic types here seem to "float" ideas here that I later see in papers. I believe that our contributions and input(advice?) reaches ears intended when those in the throws of bad governance air the travesties here.   But at this point I dare say that giving us a seat in any group of a government would be more a distraction and impediment than a tool for progress.  The most powerful voice and position in any governance that is ligitimate, is reason. As is seen, even amoung us, our leaders are but trusted servants. We follow for the sake of a civil society and respectful interface in keeping with UN tradition and in furtherance of Universal Rights. --- On Thu, 1/14/10, McTim wrote: From: McTim Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement - preamble To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" Cc: "David Souter" , "Jeremy Malcolm" Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 3:58 AM On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:14 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: Point well spoken, I suggest:    "an association of individuals of the international civil society who are actively engaged in the foundations and formulation of internet governance and the IGF."   (I recognize this may be a bit at odds with McTims indicated belief that we are actively involved in governing, but maybe I am wrong) More of a belief that we SHOULD be involved in actual IG  issues, but that we focus on meta-IG instead. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel -----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 jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jan 14 04:42:41 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:42:41 +0800 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the IGF In-Reply-To: <954259bd1001131334n5967ed18k5559d75162669309@mail.gmail.com> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <954259bd1001131334n5967ed18k5559d75162669309@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:34:55 +0100, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > Just one (I hope constructive) comment on the interesting draft you > circulated. The title currently is : "Statement on the reform of the IGF". > > I believe the use of the term "reform" sends a message that could be > misinterpreted and/or exploited by actors that strongly oppose the IGF Thanks for this point. The title was more of a working title for our use, not specifically to be used when the document is submitted. Thus, the word "reform" is not used in the body text. Thus we can, I agree, submit it under a more neutral title such as "Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF". > A few minor suggested edits (*in blue* with suppressed words in red) are > also included in the text. They usually are pointers to coded words in the > UN language or the governmental discussions and it's important for you to > have them in mind. Thanks, and thanks also to those who have commented on the preamble and paragraph 1 so far. Please, anyone, feel free to move on to paragraphs 2, 3 and following. I will compile all the suggested changes (where compatible) in a day or two and re-circulate. -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Jan 14 05:49:52 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:49:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft statement - preamble In-Reply-To: <-3875464128345134693@unknownmsgid> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <3001387034883581355@unknownmsgid> <00D8C04A-2172-4FF0-9F8A-1F4732472F6B@ciroap.org> <-3875464128345134693@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <954259bd1001140249q7f53940ewd3d92c917b97cfa7@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, Interesting exchange as usual. A suggestion below regarding formulation of the Preamble and its transformation into a point at the end of the document under the title : "About the Internet Governance Caucus". plus some more general remarks. 1. We have had recurring discussions on the nature of this list between very open debate space and the development of advocacy positions. The delicate balance between the two complementary dimensions is important to preserve. In that context, the way the IGC presents itself in such contributions to the IGF has an impact. The following description is the first paragraph of the Charter : *"The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by individual and organizational civil society actors 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."* I have always believed that this notion of *the promotion of the global public interest* (and the necessary work to define what it exactly is) is what actually unites the participants of the Caucus, and not their belonging to one type of organization or another. The value of this space is its *inclusiveness *: criteria for participation is only the endorsement of such values. As the Charter states : *"The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal* and have the same rights and duties." Major credibility factors for external actors are the diversity of the membership, the sheer amount of subscribers (more than 400) even if much fewer actually post, and above all, the quality of the contributions that result from intense exchanges. I would therefore suggest that we do not lose too much time on the question of the Preamble. The presentation of the IGC woudl be better placed in the end under the title : "About the IGC". The Internet Governance Caucus is a well-established brand and this is common practice for contributions. Leveraging the Charter's first sentences, the paragraph could read : *About the Internet Governance Caucus* The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by individual and organizational civil society actors 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. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More information is available at : http://www.igcaucus.org. 2. This spirit of inclusion is the very spirit of the Internet Governance Forum. And it should be of no surprise, given the influence of the IGC and many of its members in the creation of the IGF itself, and since 2006, in the open consultations and the MAG discussions that have helped shape the current IGF working methods. The IGF can and should be continuously improved, as it has already in its first four years. In suggesting such improvements, it is important for the IGC to balance the recognition of the achievements this innovation already represents and the constructive impatience regarding what can be further accomplished. The co-coordinators have a fundamental responsibility in ensuring such a balance that truly reflect the broad consensus among all participants. I trust this is what Jeremy is trying to accomplish here. 3. Finally, I'd like to highlight Eric Dierker's point regarding *the influence discussions on this list have in broader circles*. Let's not forget that a lot of actors, including governments and businesses are actually subscribed to the list - even if they do not post. In many cases, I've had exchanges with government colleagues and people from other circles who were perfectly aware of the arguments exchanged and - consciously or unconsciously - integrated them in their own analyzes. This is good and should be kept in mind. I hope this helps. Best Bertrand On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:09 PM, David Souter wrote: > My point about the preamble is simply this: If the IGC is an association > of > individuals, it should not represent itself as a coalition of organisations > - a description which it could not sustain if it were challenged. I would > suggest something like "an association of individuals in civil society who > are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF." But there are > many formulations that would work. > > David Souter > > > Message sent by: > > David Souter > Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd > Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, > University > of Strathclyde > Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and Communications, London > School of Economics > Associate of the International Institute for Sustainable Development > > 145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD > (+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line) > (+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] > Sent: 13 January 2010 20:19 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim > Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the > > On 13/01/2010, at 7:24 PM, McTim wrote: > > > David, > > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:48 PM, David Souter > wrote: > >> Dear Jeremy: > >> > >> I think there is a question here about IGC membership and how the IGC > >> presents itself. > >> > >> According to the Charter, “the members of the IGC are individuals, > acting > in > >> personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All > members > >> are equal and have the same rights and duties.” > >> > >> Can it really, therefore, introduce itself as “a global coalition of > civil > >> society and non governmental organisations and individuals”, as in the > >> preamble to this draft? > > FWIW, this preamble was taken verbatim from a previous statement made in > June last year. But even so, please suggest specific improvements. > > -- > 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. > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Jan 14 06:33:13 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:03:13 -0430 Subject: [governance] Text of IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010: Call for IGC consensus about support--please opine! Message-ID: <4B4F00F9.30500@gmail.com> Hello all: this is the current draft of the IRP contribution, which is up for Consensus for IGC support. There will be a "tightened" draft later, probably this afternoon, but this appears to be the essence of the statement. Please read it carefully, and advise whether the IGC should sign on in support of this statement. This is independent of any IGC statement. We need to do this quickly if we want to ask the IRP to add our signature to their written contribution. Please post. Open Consultation IGF 2010 INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement The IRP Dynamic Coalition would like to contribute to the Open Consultation for IGF 2010 in two areas: observations for taking stock of IGF 2009 and suggestions for the format and agenda of the Vilnius meeting. The comments below are organised under [..] themes, under which we take stock of IGF 2009 and then offer practical suggestions for the format and planning of IGF 2010. 1) General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found the meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued progress in all aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or who organised workshops would like to commend the organisers for their good work in this regard, particularly given the relatively limited budget and resources available to the IGF. Some specific concerns include: a. Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become diverted into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. We think it is time to move on and to keep these issues from overwhelming the topics in hand. b. Continuity and more explicit links between the main sessions and the workshops could have been stronger. Clear links in the program by cross-referencing of session/workshop themes and titles is one way to create these links before the meeting. During and after the meeting, we would like to see formal feedback opportunities put in place and integrated into the stocktaking; from organizers and/or moderators of both main sessions and workshops. c. Main sessions based around the "traditional" themes of openness, diversity, and such like started to feel a bit repetitive particularly in relation to the freshness of new themes introduced onto the program. The need for continuity and depth needs to be balanced by new themes as well d. Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists. This always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. Moderators of larger sessions need to find ways to ensure that discussion actually takes place and when it does it dynamic and inclusive. To this end we would suggest that there is an upper limit set on the number of panellists and/or length of formal presentations. Moreover that enough time is set aside for discussion. It is important that contributions from the floor, and remote participants get enough time to have their say and be adequately responded to by panellists and other participants. e. Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, we think this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to opening up the discussion about specific solutions before the actual session. 2) Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific issues that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller and more diverse participation in the IGF. a. Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time or enough information on how to use the technology provided properly. When technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on hand so many moderators found themselves doing DIY instead. This is unprofessional and causes delays and loss of focus for everyone. More information in advance from IGF HQ would be useful. But also during the event, and given the importance of enabling remote participation but also having it run smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in this respect is indispensable. b. We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a moderator on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning. Some-one needs to monitor remote participation, in partnership with the workshop moderator, in order to streamline, filter and facilitate remote participation in the proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based comments, setting up a queue for spoken interventions, or having remote participants be given the floor en bloc if this is more practicable. We would also urge all moderators to understand the many remote participants are doing this at difficult times of their 24 hour day and that time-lags require careful attention be paid to timing responses and requests by moderators on the ground. c. The above points underscore our support for proposals to organise adequate guidelines as well as a brief training session/module/virtual tour for all moderators before the IGF meeting. During the meeting is not the time to experiment. 3) Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the internet age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in general rather than specific terms. a. The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding human rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different stakeholders can or should play in this regard, and how these play out more specifically in different Internet governance issue-areas. b. With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but also main sessions that look more closely at what a "human rights agenda" or "development agenda: for Internet Governance might actually look like. Discussions around broad themes such as openness and diversity have already taken place. It is time to get down to specifics and we do not see why these specifics always have to be covered in workshop sessions. 4) Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural, regional, and linguistic representation remains a core issue for a number of dynamic coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about continuing to improve remote participation technically and organizationally relate to these concerns. Practically there is a need to a. Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between discussions and themes from national, regional and international IGFs better, during the meetings as well as in the record of these various meetings. At present the public record is piecemeal and not easily accessible. We recognise that this is process that needs dedicated time and resources to do so and urge the IGF to put aside some resources for this. b. Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By this we mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and specialised workshops need to be more accessible not only to 'everyday internet users' but also for any communities or groups from areas where the Internet is either less extensive or who have other communication priorities. ********************************************************************88 Dr Marianne Franklin Reader Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program Media & Communications Goldsmiths, University of London New Cross London SE14 6NW United Kingdom Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072 Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616 email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu Jan 14 07:21:28 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:21:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft statement - preamble In-Reply-To: <954259bd1001140249q7f53940ewd3d92c917b97cfa7@mail.gmail.com> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <3001387034883581355@unknownmsgid> <00D8C04A-2172-4FF0-9F8A-1F4732472F6B@ciroap.org> <-3875464128345134693@unknownmsgid> <954259bd1001140249q7f53940ewd3d92c917b97cfa7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Among those members with few post, evereaday I am online and follow all contributions but my english is not fluent to allow me for a regular contributing. Major credibility factors for external actors are the diversity of the membership, the sheer amount of subscribers (more than 400) even if much fewer actually post, and above all, the quality of the contributions that result from intense exchanges. Baudouin 2010/1/14, Bertrand de La Chapelle : > > Dear all, > > Interesting exchange as usual. A suggestion below regarding formulation of > the Preamble and its transformation into a point at the end of the document > under the title : "About the Internet Governance Caucus". plus some more > general remarks. > > 1. We have had recurring discussions on the nature of this list between > very open debate space and the development of advocacy positions. The > delicate balance between the two complementary dimensions is important to > preserve. > > In that context, the way the IGC presents itself in such contributions to > the IGF has an impact. The following description is the first paragraph of > the Charter : > > *"The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by > individual and organizational civil society actors 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."* > > I have always believed that this notion of *the promotion of the global > public interest* (and the necessary work to define what it exactly is) is > what actually unites the participants of the Caucus, and not their belonging > to one type of organization or another. > > The value of this space is its *inclusiveness *: criteria for > participation is only the endorsement of such values. As the Charter states > : > *"The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who > subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal* and have > the same rights and duties." > > Major credibility factors for external actors are the diversity of the > membership, the sheer amount of subscribers (more than 400) even if much > fewer actually post, and above all, the quality of the contributions that > result from intense exchanges. > > I would therefore suggest that we do not lose too much time on the question > of the Preamble. The presentation of the IGC woudl be better placed in the > end under the title : "About the IGC". The Internet Governance Caucus is a > well-established brand and this is common practice for contributions. > > Leveraging the Charter's first sentences, the paragraph could read : > > *About the Internet Governance Caucus* > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by individual > and organizational civil society actors 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. It now comprises > more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have > subscribed to its Charter. More information is available at : > http://www.igcaucus.org. > > > 2. This spirit of inclusion is the very spirit of the Internet Governance > Forum. And it should be of no surprise, given the influence of the IGC and > many of its members in the creation of the IGF itself, and since 2006, in > the open consultations and the MAG discussions that have helped shape the > current IGF working methods. > > The IGF can and should be continuously improved, as it has already in its > first four years. In suggesting such improvements, it is important for the > IGC to balance the recognition of the achievements this innovation already > represents and the constructive impatience regarding what can be further > accomplished. The co-coordinators have a fundamental responsibility in > ensuring such a balance that truly reflect the broad consensus among all > participants. I trust this is what Jeremy is trying to accomplish here. > > 3. Finally, I'd like to highlight Eric Dierker's point regarding *the > influence discussions on this list have in broader circles*. Let's not > forget that a lot of actors, including governments and businesses are > actually subscribed to the list - even if they do not post. > > In many cases, I've had exchanges with government colleagues and people > from other circles who were perfectly aware of the arguments exchanged and - > consciously or unconsciously - integrated them in their own analyzes. This > is good and should be kept in mind. > > I hope this helps. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:09 PM, David Souter wrote: > >> My point about the preamble is simply this: If the IGC is an association >> of >> individuals, it should not represent itself as a coalition of >> organisations >> - a description which it could not sustain if it were challenged. I would >> suggest something like "an association of individuals in civil society who >> are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF." But there are >> many formulations that would work. >> >> David Souter >> >> >> Message sent by: >> >> David Souter >> Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd >> Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, >> University >> of Strathclyde >> Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and Communications, London >> School of Economics >> Associate of the International Institute for Sustainable Development >> >> 145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD >> (+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line) >> (+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] >> Sent: 13 January 2010 20:19 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim >> Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of >> the >> >> On 13/01/2010, at 7:24 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> > David, >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:48 PM, David Souter >> wrote: >> >> Dear Jeremy: >> >> >> >> I think there is a question here about IGC membership and how the IGC >> >> presents itself. >> >> >> >> According to the Charter, “the members of the IGC are individuals, >> acting >> in >> >> personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All >> members >> >> are equal and have the same rights and duties.” >> >> >> >> Can it really, therefore, introduce itself as “a global coalition of >> civil >> >> society and non governmental organisations and individuals”, as in the >> >> preamble to this draft? >> >> FWIW, this preamble was taken verbatim from a previous statement made in >> June last year. But even so, please suggest specific improvements. >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571 +243811980914 email: b.schombe at gmail.com blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble Royal, Entrée A,7e niveau. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 14 08:04:10 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:04:10 +0500 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <4B4E28F1.3030702@wzb.eu> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <4B4E1FDE.8010608@wzb.eu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4D2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B4E28F1.3030702@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <701af9f71001140504g4b0197e7r65eea9750056996@mail.gmail.com> I support Jeanette's suggestions to follow the paragraph by paragraph with appropriate language changes. Also, the IGC introduction should go in the end or should be briefer to the actual definition of the caucus as in the charter. Let's continue with the para by para observation. The statement made last year doesn't have to be followed continuously for all future statements so a new statement structure/presentation can be evolved while keeping in line with the IGC Charter. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Ok, why don't we start right away. I leave out the intro, which can be > improved later I think. > > The first substantial para is the following: > > The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder > forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.  However > if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, > there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into > account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its > inauguration in 2006.  None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter > the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain > situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by > the UN. > > I agree with the spirit of this paragraph but would suggest that we try to > be a bit more specific with regard to "situated within the United Nations > system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN" > since the present wording would support a new arrangement within the UN. For > example, under the auspices of the ITU.  Perhaps we could say something to > the effect that "the IGF, including its secretariat should remain situated > within United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA". > > jeanette > > Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> I agree with Jeanette's suggested paragraph by paragraph approach. >> 9 February is probably a more plausible target. >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:32 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm >> Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of >> the >> >> Hi Jeremy, thank you for drafting this statement. Parts of it I support, >> others I don't agree with or think they are based on wrong assumptions. >> Would it make sense to briefly discuss it paragraph by paragraph to find >> out which elements find general support? >> >> jeanette >> >> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>> Below is my suggestion for a short statement based on the survey results >>> that I just posted to the list.  If we cannot obtain consensus on this >>> statement swiftly, then we will have more time between now and 9 >>> February to keep working.  However, since it is a fairly "minimalist" >>> statement, I hope that reaching a rough consensus soon will be possible. >>> >>> If initial responses to the statement below are broadly favourable, I >>> will ask Ginger if she agrees that we can quickly make a consensus call, >>> which according to the Charter gives the group another 48 hours for >>> discussion before the coordinators declare whether a rough consensus has >>> been achieved.  Whilst this cuts it fine for the 15 January deadline, we >>> will be able to ask the Secretariat for a short extension if it seems >>> likely that a consensus can be reached. >>> >>> --- begins --- >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a global coalition of civil >>> society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively >>> involved the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during >>> the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our >>> mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for >>> representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance >>> processes. More about our coalition can be found at >>> http://www.igcaucus.org . >>> >>> The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a >>> multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public >>> policy issues.  However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be >>> extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we >>> believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of >>> incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006.  None of these >>> suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus >>> for example, we believe it should remain situated within the United >>> Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN. >>> >>> However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental >>> organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are >>> adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. >>>  Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best >>> assured.  Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of >>> accountability to the MAG.  Others feel that it would improve the MAG's >>> accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder >>> groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. >>> >>> But one question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the >>> composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the >>> stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular >>> stakeholder groups as it is at present.  Many also believe that the >>> stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG >>> members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for >>> example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing >>> list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations >>> publicly. >>> >>> One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation >>> of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating >>> to the IGF's structure and processes.  Many of the IGC's members believe >>> that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, >>> ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions >>> about the future structure and processes of the IGF. >>> >>> A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the >>> accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the >>> substantive agenda of IGF meetings.  Although at present this >>> responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that the very >>> strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society >>> as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not >>> reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. >>> >>> The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation >>> towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount >>> to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our >>> members would support outputs of such kinds).  Whatever form its outputs >>> take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to >>> relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through >>> publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. >>> >>> Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to >>> maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work >>> program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting.  Many of >>> our members believe that this should include the development of an >>> ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through >>> online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. >>> >>> Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can >>> be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working >>> groups).  In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a >>> better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their >>> outputs to the IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to begin to >>> set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, >>> democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. >>> >>> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, >>> which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from >>> civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender >>> representation.  We look forward to continuing to constructively engage >>> with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 14 08:06:09 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:06:09 +0500 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <4B4E28F1.3030702@wzb.eu> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <4B4E1FDE.8010608@wzb.eu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4D2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B4E28F1.3030702@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <701af9f71001140506y3c5ece19x9fe7577d68fb20f9@mail.gmail.com> I support Jeanette's suggestions to follow the paragraph by paragraph with appropriate language changes. Also, the IGC introduction should go in the end or should not be briefer to the actual definition of the caucus as in the charter. Let's continue with the para by para observation. The statement made last year doesn't have to be followed continuously for all future statements so a new statement structure/presentation can be evolved while keeping in line with the IGC Charter. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Ok, why don't we start right away. I leave out the intro, which can be > improved later I think. > > The first substantial para is the following: > > The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder > forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.  However > if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, > there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into > account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its > inauguration in 2006.  None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter > the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain > situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by > the UN. > > I agree with the spirit of this paragraph but would suggest that we try to > be a bit more specific with regard to "situated within the United Nations > system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN" > since the present wording would support a new arrangement within the UN. For > example, under the auspices of the ITU.  Perhaps we could say something to > the effect that "the IGF, including its secretariat should remain situated > within United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA". > > jeanette > > Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> I agree with Jeanette's suggested paragraph by paragraph approach. >> 9 February is probably a more plausible target. >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:32 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm >> Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of >> the >> >> Hi Jeremy, thank you for drafting this statement. Parts of it I support, >> others I don't agree with or think they are based on wrong assumptions. >> Would it make sense to briefly discuss it paragraph by paragraph to find >> out which elements find general support? >> >> jeanette >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Jan 14 08:08:41 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:08:41 -0200 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <954259bd1001131334n5967ed18k5559d75162669309@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B4F1759.4020107@cafonso.ca> Thanks, Jeremy. I agree with the suggestions for modification from Souter and others and wait for the updated statement. frt rgds --c.a. Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:34:55 +0100, Bertrand de La Chapelle > wrote: >> Hi Jeremy, >> >> Just one (I hope constructive) comment on the interesting draft you >> circulated. The title currently is : "Statement on the reform of the > IGF". >> I believe the use of the term "reform" sends a message that could be >> misinterpreted and/or exploited by actors that strongly oppose the IGF > > Thanks for this point. The title was more of a working title for our use, > not specifically to be used when the document is submitted. Thus, the word > "reform" is not used in the body text. Thus we can, I agree, submit it > under a more neutral title such as "Submission of the IGC in taking stock > of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF". > >> A few minor suggested edits (*in blue* with suppressed words in red) are >> also included in the text. They usually are pointers to coded words in > the >> UN language or the governmental discussions and it's important for you to >> have them in mind. > > Thanks, and thanks also to those who have commented on the preamble and > paragraph 1 so far. Please, anyone, feel free to move on to paragraphs 2, 3 > and following. I will compile all the suggested changes (where compatible) > in a day or two and re-circulate. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 14 08:15:36 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:15:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <701af9f71001140506y3c5ece19x9fe7577d68fb20f9@mail.gmail.com> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <4B4E1FDE.8010608@wzb.eu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4D2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B4E28F1.3030702@wzb.eu> <701af9f71001140506y3c5ece19x9fe7577d68fb20f9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B4F18F8.5000106@wzb.eu> I would suggest to delete the following para below which is the second substantial para of the draft statement: However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best assured. Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of accountability to the MAG. Others feel that it would improve the MAG's accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. Here is my reason: formally, the secretariat is accountable to the UNSG. The para above suggests instead that the secretariat is either accountable to no one or it is accountable to the stakeholder groups but not in a sufficient manner. Both options seem misleading to me. Since there is no strong message in this para anyway, I think we don't lose much if we simply skip it. jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Jan 14 08:37:18 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:37:18 +0500 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <4B4F18F8.5000106@wzb.eu> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <4B4E1FDE.8010608@wzb.eu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4D2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B4E28F1.3030702@wzb.eu> <701af9f71001140506y3c5ece19x9fe7577d68fb20f9@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F18F8.5000106@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <701af9f71001140537n270bb6bft7509954c86650c48@mail.gmail.com> Dear Jeanette, I will be out of electricity and power again for another two hours so before that happens, I wanted to share this during the para by para observation: 1. Where it says CS concern about Human Rights, please clarify also that we members of IGC both in the Open Consultations and the MAG meetings as well as the IGF have stressed for the need of the HR and IG development agenda. 2. Please mention the statistics of the current MAG membership to show if CS composition in comparison to Governments and Private Sectors. 3. Accountability and the actual management of the IGF secretariat under the UNDESA should be kept in mind that is being practised but is wrongly mentioned in the statement. I will give more comments as I get access to electricity and internet again! On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > I would suggest to delete the following para below which is the second > substantial para of the draft statement: > > However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental organisation, > it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are adequately > accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. Within the IGC, > there are various views on how this can be best assured.  Some believe that > the Secretariat should have a level of accountability to the MAG.  Others > feel that it would improve the MAG's accountability if its members were > taken to represent the stakeholder groups (but not the particular > stakeholders) who appointed them. > > Here is my reason: formally, the secretariat is accountable to the UNSG. The > para above suggests instead that the secretariat is either accountable to no > one or it is accountable to the stakeholder groups but not in a sufficient > manner. Both options seem misleading to me. > > Since there is no strong message in this para anyway, I think we don't lose > much if we simply skip it. > > jeanette > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 14 09:28:31 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:28:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the #0 In-Reply-To: <701af9f71001140506y3c5ece19x9fe7577d68fb20f9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <89359.57288.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Spot on Fouad,   The most salient mark of intellectual integrity is constant review and modification. Why would an author proofread and rewrite all in one week and then not do so a year later?  It would seem a common goal is to take all the debate and actually apply it in our own mandates.   An easy method is to number each para with #(then number, without space) and for that to be included in subject line. This also creates "neutral searchability" without bias as to language. Also while the work is being done it promotes understanding as to amount of interest on a more particular subject and helps participants to count. --- On Thu, 1/14/10, Fouad Bajwa wrote: From: Fouad Bajwa Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann" Cc: "Lee W McKnight" Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 1:06 PM I support Jeanette's suggestions to follow the paragraph by paragraph with appropriate language changes. Also, the IGC introduction should go in the end or should not be briefer to the actual definition of the caucus as in the charter. Let's continue with the para by para observation. The statement made last year doesn't have to be followed continuously for all future statements so a new statement structure/presentation can be evolved while keeping in line with the IGC Charter. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Ok, why don't we start right away. I leave out the intro, which can be > improved later I think. > > The first substantial para is the following: > > The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder > forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.  However > if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, > there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into > account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its > inauguration in 2006.  None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter > the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain > situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by > the UN. > > I agree with the spirit of this paragraph but would suggest that we try to > be a bit more specific with regard to "situated within the United Nations > system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN" > since the present wording would support a new arrangement within the UN. For > example, under the auspices of the ITU.  Perhaps we could say something to > the effect that "the IGF, including its secretariat should remain situated > within United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA". > > jeanette > > Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> I agree with Jeanette's suggested paragraph by paragraph approach. >> 9 February is probably a more plausible target. >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:32 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm >> Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of >> the >> >> Hi Jeremy, thank you for drafting this statement. Parts of it I support, >> others I don't agree with or think they are based on wrong assumptions. >> Would it make sense to briefly discuss it paragraph by paragraph to find >> out which elements find general support? >> >> jeanette >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 14 09:34:31 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:34:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Draft statement - preamble In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <964390.52433.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Baudouin,   Perhaps we should not look inward to contribution.  The highest value in contribution is outward. And it is obvious that your few words are of higher value than my many. Thank you for your reminder, for us to intend that our words, be crafted in such a way as to promote multilingual comprehension. --- On Thu, 1/14/10, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: From: Baudouin SCHOMBE Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement - preamble To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Bertrand de La Chapelle" Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 12:21 PM Among those members with few post, evereaday I am online and follow all contributions but my english is not fluent to allow me for a regular contributing. Major credibility factors for external actors are the diversity of the membership, the sheer amount of subscribers (more than 400) even if much fewer actually post, and above all, the quality of the contributions that result from intense exchanges. Baudouin 2010/1/14, Bertrand de La Chapelle : Dear all, Interesting exchange as usual. A suggestion below regarding formulation of the Preamble and its transformation into a point at the end of the document under the title : "About the Internet Governance Caucus". plus some more general remarks. 1. We have had recurring discussions on the nature of this list between very open debate space and the development of advocacy positions. The delicate balance between the two complementary dimensions is important to preserve.  In that context, the way the IGC presents itself in such contributions to the IGF has an impact. The following description is the first paragraph of the Charter : "The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by individual and organizational civil society actors 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." I have always believed that this notion of the promotion of the global public interest (and the necessary work to define what it exactly is) is what actually unites the participants of the Caucus, and not their belonging to one type of organization or another. The value of this space is its inclusiveness : criteria for participation is only the endorsement of such values. As the Charter states : "The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the same rights and duties." Major credibility factors for external actors are the diversity of the membership, the sheer amount of subscribers (more than 400) even if much fewer actually post, and above all, the quality of the contributions that result from intense exchanges. I would therefore suggest that we do not lose too much time on the question of the Preamble. The presentation of the IGC woudl be better placed in the end under the title : "About the IGC". The Internet Governance Caucus is a well-established brand and this is common practice for contributions. Leveraging the Charter's first sentences, the paragraph could read : About the Internet Governance Caucus The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by individual and organizational civil society actors 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. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More information is available at : http://www.igcaucus.org. 2. This spirit of inclusion is the very spirit of the Internet Governance Forum. And it should be of no surprise, given the influence of the IGC and many of its members in the creation of the IGF itself, and since 2006, in the open consultations and the MAG discussions that have helped shape the current IGF working methods. The IGF can and should be continuously improved, as it has already in its first four years. In suggesting such improvements, it is important for the IGC to balance the recognition of the achievements this innovation already represents and the constructive impatience regarding what can be further accomplished. The co-coordinators have a fundamental responsibility in ensuring such a balance that truly reflect the broad consensus among all participants. I trust this is what Jeremy is trying to accomplish here. 3. Finally, I'd like to highlight Eric Dierker's point regarding the influence discussions on this list have in broader circles. Let's not forget that a lot of actors, including governments and businesses are actually subscribed to the list - even if they do not post. In many cases, I've had exchanges with government colleagues and people from other circles who were perfectly aware of the arguments exchanged and - consciously or unconsciously - integrated them in their own analyzes. This is good and should be kept in mind. I hope this helps. Best Bertrand On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:09 PM, David Souter wrote: My point about the preamble is simply this:  If the IGC is an association of individuals, it should not represent itself as a coalition of organisations - a description which it could not sustain if it were challenged.  I would suggest something like "an association of individuals in civil society who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF."  But there are many formulations that would work. David Souter Message sent by: David Souter Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, University of Strathclyde Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics Associate of the International Institute for Sustainable Development   145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD (+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line) (+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line) -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: 13 January 2010 20:19 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the On 13/01/2010, at 7:24 PM, McTim wrote: > David, > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:48 PM, David Souter wrote: >> Dear Jeremy: >> >> I think there is a question here about IGC membership and how the IGC >> presents itself. >> >> According to the Charter, “the members of the IGC are individuals, acting in >> personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus.  All members >> are equal and have the same rights and duties.” >> >> Can it really, therefore, introduce itself as “a global coalition of civil >> society and non governmental organisations and individuals”, as in the >> preamble to this draft? FWIW, this preamble was taken verbatim from a previous statement made in June last year.  But even so, please suggest specific improvements. -- 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. -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571                            +243811980914 email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e niveau. -----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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 14 09:45:49 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:45:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re:Strike 2nd para In-Reply-To: <4B4F18F8.5000106@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <213363.67258.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Try as I might it makes no sense to leave this in.  It reads like someone trying to make sense of dissent from consensus. It belongs in argument not conclusion -- My thought is that it was included to make some players happy when they disagreed. Very political sounding. --- On Thu, 1/14/10, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: From: Jeanette Hofmann Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 1:15 PM I would suggest to delete the following para below which is the second substantial para of the draft statement: However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best assured.  Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of accountability to the MAG.  Others feel that it would improve the MAG's accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. Here is my reason: formally, the secretariat is accountable to the UNSG. The para above suggests instead that the secretariat is either accountable to no one or it is accountable to the stakeholder groups but not in a sufficient manner. Both options seem misleading to me. Since there is no strong message in this para anyway, I think we don't lose much if we simply skip it. jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Thu Jan 14 09:52:16 2010 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:52:16 -0300 Subject: [governance] Text of IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF In-Reply-To: <4B4F00F9.30500@gmail.com> References: <4B4F00F9.30500@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ca4162f1001140652l5fc81e9cg959fb1d11cc5029e@mail.gmail.com> Hi Ginger and all, In my humild opinion, I think that it is ok to support this statement. Anyway, I think that points 3 and 4 must be core issues for the IGC, and I suggest to continue debating here about them, and how to improve the IGFs -global, regional, national, preparatory meetings, etc.- in this regard. Best, Roxana 2010/1/14 Ginger Paque > Hello all: this is the current draft of the IRP contribution, which is up > for Consensus for IGC support. There will be a "tightened" draft later, > probably this afternoon, but this appears to be the essence of the > statement. > > Please read it carefully, and advise whether the IGC should sign on in > support of this statement. This is independent of any IGC statement. > > We need to do this quickly if we want to ask the IRP to add our signature > to their written contribution. Please post. > > > Open Consultation IGF 2010 > > INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement > > The IRP Dynamic Coalition would like to contribute to the Open Consultation > for IGF 2010 in two areas: observations for taking stock of IGF 2009 and > suggestions for the format and agenda of the Vilnius meeting. The comments > below are organised under [..] themes, under which we take stock of IGF 2009 > and then offer practical suggestions for the format and planning of IGF > 2010. > > 1) General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found > the meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued progress in all > aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or who organised > workshops would like to commend the organisers for their good work in this > regard, particularly given the relatively limited budget and resources > available to the IGF. Some specific concerns include: > a. Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become > diverted into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. > We think it is time to move on and to keep these issues from overwhelming > the topics in hand. > b. Continuity and more explicit links between the main sessions and > the workshops could have been stronger. Clear links in the program by > cross-referencing of session/workshop themes and titles is one way to create > these links before the meeting. During and after the meeting, we would like > to see formal feedback opportunities put in place and integrated into the > stocktaking; from organizers and/or moderators of both main sessions and > workshops. > c. Main sessions based around the "traditional" themes of openness, > diversity, and such like started to feel a bit repetitive particularly in > relation to the freshness of new themes introduced onto the program. The > need for continuity and depth needs to be balanced by new themes as well > d. Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists. This > always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. Moderators of larger > sessions need to find ways to ensure that discussion actually takes place > and when it does it dynamic and inclusive. To this end we would suggest that > there is an upper limit set on the number of panellists and/or length of > formal presentations. Moreover that enough time is set aside for discussion. > It is important that contributions from the floor, and remote participants > get enough time to have their say and be adequately responded to by > panellists and other participants. > e. Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, we > think this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy > dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to opening up the > discussion about specific solutions before the actual session. > > 2) Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote > participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific issues > that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller and more > diverse participation in the IGF. > a. Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time or > enough information on how to use the technology provided properly. When > technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on hand so > many moderators found themselves doing DIY instead. This is unprofessional > and causes delays and loss of focus for everyone. More information in > advance from IGF HQ would be useful. But also during the event, and given > the importance of enabling remote participation but also having it run > smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in this respect is > indispensable. > b. We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote > Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a moderator > on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning. Some-one needs to > monitor remote participation, in partnership with the workshop moderator, in > order to streamline, filter and facilitate remote participation in the > proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based comments, setting up a queue for > spoken interventions, or having remote participants be given the floor en > bloc if this is more practicable. We would also urge all moderators to > understand the many remote participants are doing this at difficult times of > their 24 hour day and that time-lags require careful attention be paid to > timing responses and requests by moderators on the ground. > c. The above points underscore our support for proposals to organise > adequate guidelines as well as a brief training session/module/virtual tour > for all moderators before the IGF meeting. During the meeting is not the > time to experiment. > > 3) Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary > sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the internet > age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in general rather than > specific terms. > a. The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding > human rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different stakeholders > can or should play in this regard, and how these play out more specifically > in different Internet governance issue-areas. > b. With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but also > main sessions that look more closely at what a "human rights agenda" or > "development agenda: for Internet Governance might actually look like. > Discussions around broad themes such as openness and diversity have already > taken place. It is time to get down to specifics and we do not see why these > specifics always have to be covered in workshop sessions. > > 4) Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural, regional, > and linguistic representation remains a core issue for a number of dynamic > coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about continuing to improve remote > participation technically and organizationally relate to these concerns. > Practically there is a need to > a. Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between > discussions and themes from national, regional and international IGFs > better, during the meetings as well as in the record of these various > meetings. At present the public record is piecemeal and not easily > accessible. We recognise that this is process that needs dedicated time and > resources to do so and urge the IGF to put aside some resources for this. > b. Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By this > we mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and specialised > workshops need to be more accessible not only to 'everyday internet users' > but also for any communities or groups from areas where the Internet is > either less extensive or who have other communication priorities. > > ********************************************************************88 > > > > > > > > > > Dr Marianne Franklin > Reader > Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program > Media & Communications > Goldsmiths, University of London > New Cross > London SE14 6NW > United Kingdom > Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072 > Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616 > email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk > http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php > > http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Jan 14 10:55:12 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:55:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 Message-ID: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> Hi, the MAG started discussing the issue of rotation for this year. Some people were in favor of an extended term for the present membership because it is not clear if the IGF's mandate will be extended and, should it be extended, under what terms. It could be that the MAG meeting in May would be the only one for the new MAG. I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on this matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. This afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came up with a third solution. Markus just sent the following message to the MAG list and asked me to forward it to the caucus list as well. I expect the caucus will be happy about the proposed solution? Dear colleagues, Jeanette has got a point! It might not go down well if any decision were taken in this matter without consulting the broader community! However, as there is a distinct possibility that a renewed MAG will hold one meeting only, there is also a strong argument against launching the heavy rotation machinery just for the sake of this principle. I consulted with Jeanette and going through the pros and cons of both approaches we both came to the conclusion that there might be a third way. We both wondered whether there was any need for a closed meeting at all in May. As last September's planning meeting went rather well, we wondered whether we could not prepare most of this year's meeting in an open process. By doing so, we would also take into account the calls for more inclusiveness and transparency made during the consultation in Sharm. The MAG would thus meet a last time next month and set the agenda for the Vilnius meeting. The programme could be fleshed out in two open planning meetings in May and June. This could also be an experiment in view of a possible renewal of the mandate. Should the mandate be renewed, any decision on how to continue could be taken in light of this experiment. Please let me know what you think about this possible approach. Best regards Markus ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Jan 14 11:04:24 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:04:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: 4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu Message-ID: Stay the Course *Rotate* and inivte the Allumni (Current Seats) to attend. You can expaect that some may decline do to scheaduling, worst-case is the up-comming MAG may be a little plump. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 14 11:26:50 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:26:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft statement - preamble In-Reply-To: References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <3001387034883581355@unknownmsgid> <00D8C04A-2172-4FF0-9F8A-1F4732472F6B@ciroap.org> <-3875464128345134693@unknownmsgid> <954259bd1001140249q7f53940ewd3d92c917b97cfa7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <954259bd1001140826l286be07aj3b3a00d4718e6cb1@mail.gmail.com> Thanks Beaudouin, this is exactly what I meant : the value of the list is not limited to the few who post but also comes from the range of actors in the "room" who follow the discussions. Best Bertrand On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > Among those members with few post, evereaday I am online and follow all > contributions but my english is not fluent to allow me for a regular > contributing. > > > Major credibility factors for external actors are the diversity of the > membership, the sheer amount of subscribers (more than 400) even if much > fewer actually post, and above all, the quality of the contributions that > result from intense exchanges. > > Baudouin > > > 2010/1/14, Bertrand de La Chapelle : >> >> Dear all, >> >> Interesting exchange as usual. A suggestion below regarding formulation of >> the Preamble and its transformation into a point at the end of the document >> under the title : "About the Internet Governance Caucus". plus some more >> general remarks. >> >> 1. We have had recurring discussions on the nature of this list between >> very open debate space and the development of advocacy positions. The >> delicate balance between the two complementary dimensions is important to >> preserve. >> >> In that context, the way the IGC presents itself in such contributions to >> the IGF has an impact. The following description is the first paragraph of >> the Charter : >> >> *"The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by >> individual and organizational civil society actors 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."* >> >> I have always believed that this notion of *the promotion of the global >> public interest* (and the necessary work to define what it exactly is) is >> what actually unites the participants of the Caucus, and not their belonging >> to one type of organization or another. >> >> The value of this space is its *inclusiveness *: criteria for >> participation is only the endorsement of such values. As the Charter states >> : >> *"The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, >> who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal* and >> have the same rights and duties." >> >> Major credibility factors for external actors are the diversity of the >> membership, the sheer amount of subscribers (more than 400) even if much >> fewer actually post, and above all, the quality of the contributions that >> result from intense exchanges. >> >> I would therefore suggest that we do not lose too much time on the >> question of the Preamble. The presentation of the IGC woudl be better placed >> in the end under the title : "About the IGC". The Internet Governance Caucus >> is a well-established brand and this is common practice for contributions. >> >> Leveraging the Charter's first sentences, the paragraph could read : >> >> *About the Internet Governance Caucus* >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by individual >> and organizational civil society actors 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. It now comprises >> more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have >> subscribed to its Charter. More information is available at : >> http://www.igcaucus.org. >> >> >> 2. This spirit of inclusion is the very spirit of the Internet Governance >> Forum. And it should be of no surprise, given the influence of the IGC and >> many of its members in the creation of the IGF itself, and since 2006, in >> the open consultations and the MAG discussions that have helped shape the >> current IGF working methods. >> >> The IGF can and should be continuously improved, as it has already in its >> first four years. In suggesting such improvements, it is important for the >> IGC to balance the recognition of the achievements this innovation already >> represents and the constructive impatience regarding what can be further >> accomplished. The co-coordinators have a fundamental responsibility in >> ensuring such a balance that truly reflect the broad consensus among all >> participants. I trust this is what Jeremy is trying to accomplish here. >> >> 3. Finally, I'd like to highlight Eric Dierker's point regarding *the >> influence discussions on this list have in broader circles*. Let's not >> forget that a lot of actors, including governments and businesses are >> actually subscribed to the list - even if they do not post. >> >> In many cases, I've had exchanges with government colleagues and people >> from other circles who were perfectly aware of the arguments exchanged and - >> consciously or unconsciously - integrated them in their own analyzes. This >> is good and should be kept in mind. >> >> I hope this helps. >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:09 PM, David Souter wrote: >> >>> My point about the preamble is simply this: If the IGC is an association >>> of >>> individuals, it should not represent itself as a coalition of >>> organisations >>> - a description which it could not sustain if it were challenged. I >>> would >>> suggest something like "an association of individuals in civil society >>> who >>> are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF." But there are >>> many formulations that would work. >>> >>> David Souter >>> >>> >>> Message sent by: >>> >>> David Souter >>> Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd >>> Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, >>> University >>> of Strathclyde >>> Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and Communications, London >>> School of Economics >>> Associate of the International Institute for Sustainable Development >>> >>> 145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD >>> (+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line) >>> (+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line) >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] >>> Sent: 13 January 2010 20:19 >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim >>> Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of >>> the >>> >>> On 13/01/2010, at 7:24 PM, McTim wrote: >>> >>> > David, >>> > >>> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:48 PM, David Souter >> > >>> wrote: >>> >> Dear Jeremy: >>> >> >>> >> I think there is a question here about IGC membership and how the IGC >>> >> presents itself. >>> >> >>> >> According to the Charter, “the members of the IGC are individuals, >>> acting >>> in >>> >> personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All >>> members >>> >> are equal and have the same rights and duties.” >>> >> >>> >> Can it really, therefore, introduce itself as “a global coalition of >>> civil >>> >> society and non governmental organisations and individuals”, as in the >>> >> preamble to this draft? >>> >>> FWIW, this preamble was taken verbatim from a previous statement made in >>> June last year. But even so, please suggest specific improvements. >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >>> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the >> Information Society >> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of >> Foreign and European Affairs >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint >> Exupéry >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) > COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC > MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE > GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN) > > Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571 > +243811980914 > email: b.schombe at gmail.com > blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr > siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble Royal, Entrée A,7e > niveau. -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at datos-personales.org Thu Jan 14 12:12:25 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:12:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <12B8F5A2-5F50-4669-B335-0E4F7E98A35A@datos-personales.org> Dear all: I fully support the open approach outline below. Knowing the process in advance, will give us (civil society) enough time to work in our own process and ways to organize and coordinate ourselves, as well as to include the voices of those who will not be able to attend the meeting (remote participation)/online consultation. From a civil society point of view, the process of selection of candidates is a good opportunity to share knowledge with other stakeholders (and among us) on the human rights concerns we want to highlight in those main sessions in a more granular detail. We are able to influence in the issues we care about in multi-layer levels, and learn the agenda of the other stakeholders (which is useful). Interaction among all the stakeholders (even if we widely disagree, which in fact is OK), can give us unprecedented ways to move forward the human rights agenda we want to highlight. My 2 cents, Katitza On Jan 14, 2010, at 10:55 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > > the MAG started discussing the issue of rotation for this year. Some > people were in favor of an extended term for the present membership > because it is not clear if the IGF's mandate will be extended and, > should it be extended, under what terms. It could be that the MAG > meeting in May would be the only one for the new MAG. > > I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on this > matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. This > afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came up with a > third solution. Markus just sent the following message to the MAG > list and asked me to forward it to the caucus list as well. I expect > the caucus will be happy about the proposed solution? > > Dear colleagues, > > Jeanette has got a point! It might not go down well if any decision > were taken in this matter without consulting the broader community! > However, as there is a distinct possibility that a renewed MAG will > hold one meeting only, there is also a strong argument against > launching the heavy rotation machinery just for the sake of this > principle. > > I consulted with Jeanette and going through the pros and cons of > both approaches we both came to the conclusion that there might be a > third way. We both wondered whether there was any need for a closed > meeting at all in May. As last September's planning meeting went > rather well, we wondered whether we could not prepare most of this > year's meeting in an open process. By doing so, we would also take > into account the calls for more inclusiveness and transparency made > during the consultation in Sharm. > > The MAG would thus meet a last time next month and set the agenda > for the Vilnius meeting. The programme could be fleshed out in two > open planning meetings in May and June. > > This could also be an experiment in view of a possible renewal of > the mandate. Should the mandate be renewed, any decision on how to > continue could be taken in light of this experiment. > > Please let me know what you think about this possible approach. > > Best regards > Markus > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 14 12:07:52 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:37:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC Written Contribution for IGF, deadline Jan 15 In-Reply-To: <4B4E04C1.50008@gmail.com> References: <4B4DD2B6.8090101@gmail.com>,<4ca4162f1001130634q66f445ecida59a6db611d991e@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4CD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B4E04C1.50008@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B4F4F68.7030908@itforchange.net> I hope that IGC is able to highlight the fact that while IGF Hyderabad ended on a relatively high note where there seemed to be a consensus that the IGF process should now move forward and try to become more focussed and more purposive, IGF Sharm did not really take the promised steps forward. The closing session at Hyderabad had clearly addressed this imperative and gave enough outlines to push us towards a more focussed and purposed approach - key issues based round tables was the key format around which such an approach was anchored. At Sharm nothing like this happened, and in fact Sharm was the first time where some significant substantive or process innovation over the earlier IGF did not take place. (I know this was also because of the realpolitik around IGF renewal, but we need not play that tune, and say what we have to say - observing and realting the facts as that stand.) Merely saying things are going along well at the IGF is not what we may want to project as our comments. IGF is supposed to help along global policy making in the important IG space and I really do not see it going anywhere at present in this regard. There are, no doubt, huge possibilities, but civil society actors would need to do a lot of pushing along for them to be realized. parminder Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks, Roxana and Lee for your emails. > > Everyone... > > I have copied below the thread from the IRP Mailing list, that refers > to their progress on a statement for the IGF OC for Feb., to be > submitted as a written contribution by January 15th. This gives you an > idea of where they are going. I will post the final draft when it is > posted on the IRP list. > > I am not suggesting that we opine as to the content of the IRP > statement. If anyone wants to do that, they should do so on the IRP > list. All we will do is either support their statement or not, > depending on IGC consensus. > > Thanks, gp > > > [Fwd: Re: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010] > > Dear Lisa and all, > > I'm comfortable with all the suggestions to the statement presented so > far, but I feel deeply concerned with the adoption of the term "users" > as a general category. Who are the everyday Internet users? > > I think we should stress the importance of assuring diversity of > voices, of regional and linguistical representation, the participation > of underepresented groups, etc, etc, but I see the proposal of > bringing the "everyday internet users" to the IGF quite dangerous. > Besides, I guess everyone who goes to the IGF is an everyday internet > user. > > best, > Graciela > > > Lisa Horner escreveu: >> Everyone, please send your ideas through for the Open Consultations. We >> should focus on practical suggestions for the 2010 agenda. It's really >> important that we get our ideas in now, before the agenda is agreed and >> it's too late. We need your ideas NOW as we need to draft a statement >> and get it submitted by the 15th. >> >> I guess if no one has anything to add, we should keep it short and >> succinct, focusing on human rights rather than the process issues. >> >> In addition to my previous comments, I'd like to add another... >> >> The IGF (including regional and international) needs to find ways of >> better involving everyday internet users in the discussions, and of >> improving participation from developing countries. This is particularly >> important if we are to uphold human rights in and through IG - users >> need to know what their rights are and how to claim them, as well as >> contribute to the formation of policies that affect them. >> >> In terms of practical suggestions of how this might happen.... >> A main session on what users need from the IGF, including discussion of >> how to better include users in any future incarnations of the IGF? >> Session organizers agreeing to consult with users, and explaining how >> they have on feedback forms/in session reports? National IGFs >> formalizing participation from users, including outreach >> and information campaign? >> Setting up some kind of portal/interface for everyday users to explain >> ideas and needs? >> More focus on the discussion RE funding for a wider range of >> participants. >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Lisa >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: M I Franklin [mailto:cos02mf at gold.ac.uk] Sent: 11 January 2010 >> 10:29 >> To: Lisa Horner; irp >> Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010 >> >> Dear All >> >> Thanks Lisa for these comments. >> >> Anyone else have anything to add? >> >> Cheers >> MF >> >> --On 08 January 2010 11:30 +0000 Lisa Horner >> wrote: >> >> >>> Thanks for taking the lead with this Marianne. Some very quick notes >>> below...would be good to hear people's thoughts and have a discussion >>> about the options... >>> >>> 1) Contributions that take stock of last year's IGF in Sharm el Sheikh >>> >>> - Overall, the meeting was well organized. I think things have >>> >> improved >> >>> each year. >>> - Remote participation seemed to work well. However, workshop >>> organizers weren't given much support on how to use it properly and >>> technicians weren't always on hand. More information in advance would >>> be useful. >>> - A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary sessions reaffirmed the >>> importance of upholding human rights in the internet age. The >>> >> challenge >> >>> now is to focus on how that can actually be achieved in practice, and >>> what roles different stakeholders can/should play. >>> - Discussions, especially in plenary, seemed to be distracted by the >>> issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. (does anyone >>> have an update on the status of those discussions?) >>> - Links between the main sessions and the workshops still weren't >>> >> great. >> >>> - Main sessions based around the "traditional" categories of openness, >>> diversity etc felt a bit stale. The new themes introduced were >>> refreshing. >>> - main sessions without a large number of panelists worked better, but >>> we need to find better ways of ensuring that wider plenary discussion >>> remains coherent, dynamic and inclusive. >>> >>> 2) Suggestions for the agenda and format of the Vilnius meeting. >>> >>> - Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, could >>> >> more >> >>> specific questions or policy dilemmas be proposed in advance, that >>> people can debate in advance and suggest specific solutions to? >>> >>> - Related to the previous point, having sessions that look at a "human >>> rights agenda" or "development agenda for IG" I think would be more >>> useful than broad themes such as openness and diversity. I think >>> >> these >> >>> debates have been had in previous open consultations, but I haven't >>> >> been >> >>> able to keep up with everything...does anyone have any insights on >>> >> this? >> >>> As a coalition, we should probably discuss whether it's realistic to >>> propose a human rights main session...could we propose a development >>> main session, and then push for HRs to be a major part of that. >>> >> Should >> >>> we be proposing development/HRs as an overarching theme again? >>> >>> - Again related to previous point, the coalition should propose that >>> >> it >> >>> participates in the organization of the main session related to >>> "openness" or development/HRs/Privacy. >>> >>> - Can we suggest ways of linking the national, regional and >>> international IGFs better together? It would probably be useful if >>> >> this >> >>> could be done in a thematic way, for example with feedback from each >>> >> IGF >> >>> on "openness" being collected beforehand and reported back in the >>> openness session. Would require work though - no resources to do it?? >>> >>> - Can we suggest ways of linking the workshops better to the main >>> sessions? There was no formal feedback session last year, and >>> >> workshop >> >>> organizers weren't given a formal opportunity to feedback in the main >>> sessions as far as I'm aware. >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf >>> >> Of >> >>> M I Franklin >>> Sent: 07 January 2010 18:50 >>> To: irp >>> Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010 >>> >>> Dear All >>> >>> Greetings. To follow on from Max's speed-of-light sending out of the >>> minutes of today's IRP phone-conference, this email is a call for >>> contributions to a statement from the DC as part of the open >>> consultations >>> in preparation for Vilnius later this year. >>> >>> Fouad's invitation for ideas and comments for the MAG meetings is >>> >> pasted >> >>> below fyi so the DC statement also contributes to this side of the >>> process; >>> point 4 in particular. >>> >>> In short, the IRP statement can cover: >>> >>> >>> Time is short, so we need your comments by Monday at the latest. I >>> >> will >> >>> then cobble up a first draft for one more round. The statement has to >>> >> be >> >>> ready to go by 15 January. >>> >>> All input welcome on either or both of the two aspects above. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> ciao >>> MF >>> >>> --On Thursday, January 07, 2010 6:08 +0500 Fouad Bajwa >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Dear Friends, >>>> >>>> As you are all aware about the IGF Open Consultation and MAG meetings >>>> in February 2010, I would like to request those people that cannot >>>> participate but would like to be heard to forward their interventions >>>> so that we can read and extend them on the floor during the Open >>>> Consultation. I further request statements to be brief, concise and >>>> >> to >> >>>> the point as the floor has to be passed on to the wide participation >>>> during the consultation. >>>> >>>> As for the MAG, we have a strong Civil Society MAG group including >>>> myself. The MAG is responsible for suggesting the design/organization >>>> of the IGF2010. IF you have concerns regarding the programming of the >>>> IGF2010, you can forward your statements for intervention to me so >>>> that they can be shared amongst our other team members. Once again, >>>> the requirement for being brief, concise and to the point applies >>>> >> here >> >>>> as well! >>>> >>>> Ideas for interventions can involve statements such as but not >>>> >> limited >> >>> to: >>> >>>> 1. Issues surfaced during the IGF2009 in Sharam. >>>> 2. Developing Country Participation/Inclusion Issues. >>>> 3. Main Program / Main Theme Issues for IGF2010. >>>> 4. Human Rights Issues/Rights on the Internet Issues. >>>> 5. Development Agenda for Internet Governance Issues. >>>> 6. Youth and Gender Participation Issues. >>>> >>>> For your convenience and live correspondence, I will be available on >>>> Skype (ID:fouadbajwa , kindly don't forget to introduce yourself >>>> please while adding me) throughout the three days of meetings (1 day >>>> open consultation + 2 days MAG meetings). >>>> >>>> I look forward to assisting your interventions. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards. >>>> -------------------------- >>>> Fouad Bajwa >>>> Advisor & Researcher >>>> ICT4D & Internet Governance >>>> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) >>>> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) >>>> My Blog: Internet's Governance >>>> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >>>> Follow my Tweets: >>>> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >>>> MAG Interview: >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> IRP mailing list >>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>> >>>> >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri >> >>> g >>> >>>> htsandprinciples.org >>>> >>> >>> Dr Marianne Franklin >>> Reader >>> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program >>> Media & Communications >>> Goldsmiths, University of London >>> New Cross >>> London SE14 6NW >>> United Kingdom >>> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072 >>> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616 >>> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk >>> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php >>> >>> >> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-me >> >>> dia.php >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> >>> >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri >> >>> ghtsandprinciples.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> >>> >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri >> g >> >>> htsandprinciples.org >>> >> >> >> >> Dr Marianne Franklin >> Reader >> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program >> Media & Communications >> Goldsmiths, University of London >> New Cross >> London SE14 6NW >> United Kingdom >> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072 >> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616 >> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk >> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php >> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-me >> dia.php >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Jan 14 12:58:27 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:58:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <4B4F18F8.5000106@wzb.eu> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <4B4E1FDE.8010608@wzb.eu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4D2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B4E28F1.3030702@wzb.eu> <701af9f71001140506y3c5ece19x9fe7577d68fb20f9@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F18F8.5000106@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On Jan 14, 2010, at 2:15 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > I would suggest to delete the following para below which is the second substantial para of the draft statement: > > However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best assured. Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of accountability to the MAG. Others feel that it would improve the MAG's accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. > > Here is my reason: formally, the secretariat is accountable to the UNSG. The para above suggests instead that the secretariat is either accountable to no one or it is accountable to the stakeholder groups but not in a sufficient manner. Both options seem misleading to me. > > Since there is no strong message in this para anyway, I think we don't lose much if we simply skip it. I agree with this and Jeanette's proposal regarding the first substantive para. 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Jan 14 13:08:43 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:08:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <79420E33-0C5D-4344-A2C8-C4B8E747189E@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Jeremy, On Jan 14, 2010, at 5:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:55:12 +0000, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: >> I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on this >> matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. This >> afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came up with a >> third solution. Markus just sent the following message to the MAG list >> and asked me to forward it to the caucus list as well. I expect the >> caucus will be happy about the proposed solution? I would > > Wearing my cynical hat, this may just mean that any of the decisions that > would otherwise have been made by the MAG in May will be made by the > Secretariat instead, rather than submitting them to the anarchy of the open > consultation meeting. How would that work? Markus' message to the MAG suggests they meet a last time next month and set the agenda for the Vilnius meeting, and the program then would be fleshed out in two open planning meetings in May and June. What decisions could the secretariat go off and make on its own without the two open planning meetings noticing, and why would it try to? > But wearing my optimistic hat, I hope that this will > not be the case and that this move will simply mean a more open planning > process in May. Bon chapeau... Cheers, 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 katitza at datos-personales.org Thu Jan 14 14:02:35 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:02:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy, It is useful to make those cynical analysis. My experience is that the process is driven in situ, in that moment but the different participants. So far, it works OK. However, It can go either way. I think we will be effective as long as we organize ourselves (and raise our points), and follow up those decisions. All the best, Katitza On Jan 14, 2010, at 11:09 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:55:12 +0000, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: >> I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on this >> matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. This >> afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came up with a >> third solution. Markus just sent the following message to the MAG >> list >> and asked me to forward it to the caucus list as well. I expect the >> caucus will be happy about the proposed solution? > > Wearing my cynical hat, this may just mean that any of the decisions > that > would otherwise have been made by the MAG in May will be made by the > Secretariat instead, rather than submitting them to the anarchy of > the open > consultation meeting. > But wearing my optimistic hat, I hope that this will > not be the case and that this move will simply mean a more open > planning > process in May. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 datos-personales.org Thu Jan 14 14:08:03 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:08:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <79420E33-0C5D-4344-A2C8-C4B8E747189E@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <79420E33-0C5D-4344-A2C8-C4B8E747189E@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <9F5E6B43-166D-4454-A2A1-7FBB861794FF@datos-personales.org> Jeremy, On Jan 14, 2010, at 1:08 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> Wearing my cynical hat, this may just mean that any of the >> decisions that >> would otherwise have been made by the MAG in May will be made by the >> Secretariat instead, rather than submitting them to the anarchy of >> the open >> consultation meeting. > > How would that work? Markus' message to the MAG suggests they meet > a last time next month and set the agenda for the Vilnius meeting, > and the program then would be fleshed out in two open planning > meetings in May and June. What decisions could the secretariat go > off and make on its own without the two open planning meetings > noticing, and why would it try to? It can happen if no one gets any agreement of anything. However, we are be able to notice it, because it will happen in an open meeting. I personally agree with the propose solution (at least in this case), and see how it goes. All the best, Katitza -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From presidencia at internauta.org.ar Thu Jan 14 16:23:59 2010 From: presidencia at internauta.org.ar (Presidencia Internauta) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:23:59 -0300 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <954259bd1001131334n5967ed18k5559d75162669309@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F1759.4020107@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Spanish & English Spanish Estimados todos: Con respecto a lo sugerido por Souter, creo que es importante la representación de sociedad civil y no la de individuos aislados. Es necesario que la representación sea de un colectivo de opinión y voluntad común y no la del sujeto aislado. Lo que se discute acá es siempre en función del hombre como ser colectivo, como expresión de intereses comunes y no de intereses individuales, nuestra fortaleza radica ahí y no en nuestras individualidades. Me sumo a lo expresado por Baudouin con respecto a seguir lo que se discute en la lista; estoy al tanto de lo que se discute aunque poco he podido hacer en función de la brecha que impone el idioma, así y todo estoy todos los días intentando poner mi ingles lo mejor posible para poder intervenir más. Saludos cordiales Sergio Salinas Porto Internauta Argentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet http://www.internauta.org.ar English Dear all: On Souter's suggestion, I think it is important according the representation of civil society and not isolated individuals. It is necessary that the representation is a collective opinion and common will and not the isolated individual, What we discuss here is always in terms of the man as a collective, as an expression of common interests rather than individual interests, our strength lies there and not in ours individualities. I agree with what Baudouin expressed regarding what is discussed further in the list. I am aware of what is discussed in the list, but little I could do based on the gap imposed by the language; even so I am trying every day my English and I put my best to participate more. Best regards Sergio Salinas Porto Internauta Argentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet http://www.internauta.org.ar ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carlos A. Afonso" To: Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the > Thanks, Jeremy. I agree with the suggestions for modification from > Souter and others and wait for the updated statement. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:34:55 +0100, Bertrand de La Chapelle >> wrote: >>> Hi Jeremy, >>> >>> Just one (I hope constructive) comment on the interesting draft you >>> circulated. The title currently is : "Statement on the reform of the >> IGF". >>> I believe the use of the term "reform" sends a message that could be >>> misinterpreted and/or exploited by actors that strongly oppose the IGF >> >> Thanks for this point. The title was more of a working title for our use, >> not specifically to be used when the document is submitted. Thus, the word >> "reform" is not used in the body text. Thus we can, I agree, submit it >> under a more neutral title such as "Submission of the IGC in taking stock >> of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF". >> >>> A few minor suggested edits (*in blue* with suppressed words in red) are >>> also included in the text. They usually are pointers to coded words in >> the >>> UN language or the governmental discussions and it's important for you to >>> have them in mind. >> >> Thanks, and thanks also to those who have commented on the preamble and >> paragraph 1 so far. Please, anyone, feel free to move on to paragraphs 2, 3 >> and following. I will compile all the suggested changes (where compatible) >> in a day or two and re-circulate. >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Jan 14 16:38:48 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:38:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] French contribution for the IGF February consultations Message-ID: <954259bd1001141338n648ac6e6r534f96b199b046d@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, For information, you will find attached the contribution I just sent to the IGF Secretariat in the perspective of the February consultation. It explores possible further improvements of the IGF working methods. I hope you'll find it interesting/useful. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Preparation of the Vilnius IGF.doc Type: application/msword Size: 47104 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 dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 14 17:59:36 2010 From: dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com (Dina) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:59:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <733856.7441.qm@web45210.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Dear Sergio, . But when I see somebody has got my opinion  I see no use to repeat the same things . OK I agree with those who think the term "reform" sends a message that could be  misinterpreted and/or exploited by actors that strongly oppose the IGF Kindest regards  Dina     --- On Thu, 1/14/10, Presidencia Internauta wrote: From: Presidencia Internauta Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Carlos A. Afonso" Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 1:23 PM  Spanish & English Spanish Estimados todos: Con respecto a lo sugerido por Souter, creo que es importante la representación de sociedad civil y no la de individuos aislados. Es necesario que la representación sea de un colectivo de opinión y voluntad común y no la del sujeto aislado. Lo que se discute acá es siempre en función del hombre como ser colectivo, como expresión de intereses comunes y no de intereses individuales, nuestra fortaleza radica ahí y no en nuestras individualidades. Me sumo a lo expresado por Baudouin con respecto a seguir lo que se discute en la lista;  estoy al tanto de lo que se discute aunque poco he podido hacer en función de la brecha que impone el idioma, así y todo estoy todos los días intentando poner mi ingles lo mejor posible para poder intervenir más. Saludos cordiales Sergio Salinas Porto Internauta A rgentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet http://www.internauta.org.ar   English Dear all: On Souter's suggestion, I think it is important according the representation of civil society and not isolated individuals. It is necessary that the representation is a collective opinion and common will and not the isolated individual, What we discuss here is always in terms of the man as a collective, as an expression of common interests rather than individual interests, our strength lies there and not in ours individualities.  I agree with what Baudouin expressed regarding what is discussed further in the list. I am aware of what is discussed in the list, but little I could do based on the gap imposed by the language; even so I am trying every day my English and I put my best to participate more. Best regards Sergio Salinas Porto Internauta A rgentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet http://www.internauta.org.ar ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carlos A. Afonso" To: Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the > Thanks, Jeremy. I agree with the suggestions for modification from > Souter and others and wait for the updated statement. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:34:55 +0100, Bertrand de La Chapelle >> wrote: >>> Hi Jeremy, >>> >>> Just one (I hope constructive) comment on the interesting draft you >>> circulated. The title currently is : "Statement on the reform of the >> IGF". >>> I believe the use of the term "reform" sends a message that could be >>> misinterpreted and/or exploited by actors that strongly oppose the IGF >> >> Thanks for this point. The title was more of a working title for our use, >> not specifically to be used when the document is submitted. Thus, the word >> "reform" is not used in the body text. Thus we can, I agree, submit it >> under a more neutral title such as "Submission of the IGC in taking stock >> of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF". >> >>> A few minor suggested edits (*in blue* with suppressed words in red) are >>> also included in the text. They usually are pointers to coded words in >> the >>> UN language or the governmental discussions and it's important for you to >>> have them in mind. >> >> Thanks, and thanks also to those who have commented on the preamble and >> paragraph 1 so far. Please, anyone, feel free to move on to paragraphs 2, 3 >> and following. I will compile all the suggested changes (where compatible) >> in a day or two and re-circulate. >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 15 00:00:04 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:30:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> Hi All I just now posted the following message to the IGF MAG list. More openness is always welcome but there are also some larger structural questions about the mandate and efficacy of the IGF which worry me since the proposal of 'only open meetings' has been made in connection with the need or not of renewing the MAG. I will posit these larger questions a little later while I share my mentioned email. Parminder (Disclosure: I am some kind of a member of the MAG system and am funded for attending its meeting. However, to be fair to me, I was also funded to attend the planning meeting in Sept which was *not* a MAG meeting.) Dear Markus and others, A couple of questions come to my mind regarding the new proposal which could merit some discussion. Does this mean that there will be no MAG post Feb? (I understand that MAG could exist while there be only open planning meeting as in Sept last.) If so, have we looked at all the implication - tangible and intangible - of there being no MAG in existence for a whole year in the run-up to an IGF meeting, and during the meeting? Does this in fact suggest that we could anyway more or less do without a MAG, and a couple of open preparatory/ planning meetings in Geneva, outcomes of which are culled/interpreted by the secretariat, is all that is needed to hold the IGF and comply with the WSIS requirements? Does trying out this practice in the year of possible structural changes to the IGF - possibly taken up along with its renewal if it comes - can have even more special significance? Thanks and best regards Parminder Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > > the MAG started discussing the issue of rotation for this year. Some > people were in favor of an extended term for the present membership > because it is not clear if the IGF's mandate will be extended and, > should it be extended, under what terms. It could be that the MAG > meeting in May would be the only one for the new MAG. > > I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on this > matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. This > afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came up with a > third solution. Markus just sent the following message to the MAG list > and asked me to forward it to the caucus list as well. I expect the > caucus will be happy about the proposed solution? > > Dear colleagues, > > Jeanette has got a point! It might not go down well if any decision > were taken in this matter without consulting the broader community! > However, as there is a distinct possibility that a renewed MAG will > hold one meeting only, there is also a strong argument against > launching the heavy rotation machinery just for the sake of this > principle. > > I consulted with Jeanette and going through the pros and cons of both > approaches we both came to the conclusion that there might be a third > way. We both wondered whether there was any need for a closed meeting > at all in May. As last September's planning meeting went rather well, > we wondered whether we could not prepare most of this year's meeting > in an open process. By doing so, we would also take into account the > calls for more inclusiveness and transparency made during the > consultation in Sharm. > > The MAG would thus meet a last time next month and set the agenda for > the Vilnius meeting. The programme could be fleshed out in two open > planning meetings in May and June. > > This could also be an experiment in view of a possible renewal of the > mandate. Should the mandate be renewed, any decision on how to > continue could be taken in light of this experiment. > > Please let me know what you think about this possible approach. > > Best regards > Markus > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 15 00:37:52 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:37:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <733856.7441.qm@web45210.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <217378.6980.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I do not think that this was too hard or too much to ask?  In earlier days we had "me too" posts. Writers and advocates cannot read minds -- especially 400. How do they know when they hit the mark or are offbase. One arguing contributor does not help us to read what many think.   I do my best to contact my friends on the ground from Vladivostok to Tehran, from Cape Cod to Saigon, Falklands to Paris, Johanasberg to Montevideo,,, I read India Times and Al Jazeera, Washington Post (force myself to see some TV and listen to some radio) I study on-line and off -- But I cannot know what the many here think ---. I read Mueller and Williams, Faussett and Cerf, Babtista and Avri but they do not help me know what is thought in your neighborhood.   Even private posts are helpful. --- On Thu, 1/14/10, Dina wrote: From: Dina Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Presidencia Internauta" Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 10:59 PM Dear Sergio, . But when I see somebody has got my opinion  I see no use to repeat the same things . OK I agree with those who think the term "reform" sends a message that could be  misinterpreted and/or exploited by actors that strongly oppose the IGF Kindest regards   Dina     --- On Thu, 1/14/10, Presidencia Internauta wrote: From: Presidencia Internauta Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Carlos A. Afonso" Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 1:23 PM  Spanish & English Spanish Estimados todos: Con respecto a lo sugerido por Souter, creo que es importante la representación de sociedad civil y no la de individuos aislados. Es necesario que la representación sea de un colectivo de opinión y voluntad común y no la del sujeto aislado. Lo que se discute acá es siempre en función del hombre como ser colectivo, como expresión de intereses comunes y no de intereses individuales, nuestra fortaleza radica ahí y no en nuestras individualidades. Me sumo a lo expresado por Baudouin con respecto a seguir lo que se discute en la lista;  estoy al tanto de lo que se discute aunque poco he podido hacer en función de la brecha que impone el idioma, así y todo estoy todos los días intentando poner mi ingles lo mejor posible para poder intervenir más. Saludos cordiales Sergio Salinas Porto Internauta A rgentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet http://www.internauta.org.ar   English Dear all: On Souter's suggestion, I think it is important according the representation of civil society and not isolated individuals. It is necessary that the representation is a collective opinion and common will and not the isolated individual, What we discuss here is always in terms of the man as a collective, as an expression of common interests rather than individual interests, our strength lies there and not in ours individualities.  I agree with what Baudouin expressed regarding what is discussed further in the list. I am aware of what is discussed in the list, but little I could do based on the gap imposed by the language; even so I am trying every day my English and I put my best to participate more. Best regards Sergio Salinas Porto Internauta A rgentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet http://www.internauta.org.ar ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carlos A. Afonso" To: Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the > Thanks, Jeremy. I agree with the suggestions for modification from > Souter and others and wait for the updated statement. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:34:55 +0100, Bertrand de La Chapelle >> wrote: >>> Hi Jeremy, >>> >>> Just one (I hope constructive) comment on the interesting draft you >>> circulated. The title currently is : "Statement on the reform of the >> IGF". >>> I believe the use of the term "reform" sends a message that could be >>> misinterpreted and/or exploited by actors that strongly oppose the IGF >> >> Thanks for this point. The title was more of a working title for our use, >> not specifically to be used when the document is submitted. Thus, the word >> "reform" is not used in the body text. Thus we can, I agree, submit it >> under a more neutral title such as "Submission of the IGC in taking stock >> of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF". >> >>> A few minor suggested edits (*in blue* with suppressed words in red) are >>> also included in the text. They usually are pointers to coded words in >> the >>> UN language or the governmental discussions and it's important for you to >>> have them in mind. >> >> Thanks, and thanks also to those who have commented on the preamble and >> paragraph 1 so far. Please, anyone, feel free to move on to paragraphs 2, 3 >> and following. I will compile all the suggested changes (where compatible) >> in a day or two and re-circulate. >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -----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 jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Jan 15 04:42:16 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:42:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> Hi, we discussed some of the implications you mention below. This year's meetings following the February meeting could be regarded as an experiment to find out if a MAG is needed at all. Perhaps open planning meetings such as the one we had in September 2009 are sufficient for setting the agenda; perhaps the need for some sort of steering committee does arise, perhaps not. Since it is unclear whether after 2010 there will be a new mandate for an IGF and if so, whether the new IGF will continue to have a secretariat and a non-bureau like preparatory structure, this year's preparation seems to be a good opportunity to experiment with processes that are more open and transparent and less burdensome. The annual rotation does involve a lot of work for both the secretariat and all stakeholder groups. jeanette Parminder wrote: > Hi All > > I just now posted the following message to the IGF MAG list. More > openness is always welcome but there are also some larger structural > questions about the mandate and efficacy of the IGF which worry me since > the proposal of 'only open meetings' has been made in connection with > the need or not of renewing the MAG. I will posit these larger questions > a little later while I share my mentioned email. Parminder > > (Disclosure: I am some kind of a member of the MAG system and am funded > for attending its meeting. However, to be fair to me, I was also funded > to attend the planning meeting in Sept which was *not* a MAG meeting.) > > Dear Markus and others, > > A couple of questions come to my mind regarding the new proposal which > could merit some discussion. > > Does this mean that there will be no MAG post Feb? (I understand that > MAG could exist while there be only open planning meeting as in Sept last.) > > If so, have we looked at all the implication - tangible and intangible - > of there being no MAG in existence for a whole year in the run-up to an > IGF meeting, and during the meeting? > > Does this in fact suggest that we could anyway more or less do without a > MAG, and a couple of open preparatory/ planning meetings in Geneva, > outcomes of which are culled/interpreted by the secretariat, is all that > is needed to hold the IGF and comply with the WSIS requirements? > > Does trying out this practice in the year of possible structural changes > to the IGF - possibly taken up along with its renewal if it comes - can > have even more special significance? > > Thanks and best regards > > Parminder > > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Hi, >> >> the MAG started discussing the issue of rotation for this year. Some >> people were in favor of an extended term for the present membership >> because it is not clear if the IGF's mandate will be extended and, >> should it be extended, under what terms. It could be that the MAG >> meeting in May would be the only one for the new MAG. >> >> I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on this >> matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. This >> afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came up with a >> third solution. Markus just sent the following message to the MAG list >> and asked me to forward it to the caucus list as well. I expect the >> caucus will be happy about the proposed solution? >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> Jeanette has got a point! It might not go down well if any decision >> were taken in this matter without consulting the broader community! >> However, as there is a distinct possibility that a renewed MAG will >> hold one meeting only, there is also a strong argument against >> launching the heavy rotation machinery just for the sake of this >> principle. >> >> I consulted with Jeanette and going through the pros and cons of both >> approaches we both came to the conclusion that there might be a third >> way. We both wondered whether there was any need for a closed meeting >> at all in May. As last September's planning meeting went rather well, >> we wondered whether we could not prepare most of this year's meeting >> in an open process. By doing so, we would also take into account the >> calls for more inclusiveness and transparency made during the >> consultation in Sharm. >> >> The MAG would thus meet a last time next month and set the agenda for >> the Vilnius meeting. The programme could be fleshed out in two open >> planning meetings in May and June. >> >> This could also be an experiment in view of a possible renewal of the >> mandate. Should the mandate be renewed, any decision on how to >> continue could be taken in light of this experiment. >> >> Please let me know what you think about this possible approach. >> >> Best regards >> Markus >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 15 08:19:41 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:19:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4oleDoSttGULFACk@perry.co.uk> In message <4B4FF654.70501 at itforchange.net>, at 10:30:04 on Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Parminder writes >Does this mean that there will be no MAG post Feb? (I understand that >MAG could exist while there be only open  planning meeting as in Sept >last. The MAG would surely still exist, and have some role even at the Vilnius meeting and afterwards at the IGF-2010 wrap-up which will no doubt take place some time after the meeting. The issue here, is whether or not we need to go through the process of creating a rotated MAG, in view of the special circumstances of the earlier meeting and the possibility (however slight) of no 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Jan 15 09:24:39 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:24:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <217378.6980.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <733856.7441.qm@web45210.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <217378.6980.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I realise that this is probably too late and very poorly stated but PLEASE could our contribution include a call for continuing work on facilitation of multilingualism. I am particularly urged to this by the contributions of Baudoin and "Internauta". The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has brought us all together. ALL have the right to speak EACH IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE. (I recognise that the lingua franca of this list is agreed as English, but whatever statement is made will be about the IGF generally) Each of the IGFs I have attended (3 and 4) has expressed concern over access for people with disabilities. In a world perceived as anglophone it is a disability not to speak English. Arrangements for the blind and the deaf have to accommodate themselves to the disability - one doesn't say "learn to see" to a blind person - and are designed to make two way communication possible. Language needs to be given similar attention. One of the most basic of human rights is the right to speak and the right to have access to what is spoken. This is also a matter of language. Deirdre 2010/1/15 Eric Dierker > I do not think that this was too hard or too much to ask? In earlier days > we had "me too" posts. Writers and advocates cannot read minds -- especially > 400. How do they know when they hit the mark or are offbase. One arguing > contributor does not help us to read what many think. > > I do my best to contact my friends on the ground from Vladivostok to > Tehran, from Cape Cod to Saigon, Falklands to Paris, Johanasberg to > Montevideo,,, I read India Times and Al Jazeera, Washington Post (force > myself to see some TV and listen to some radio) I study on-line and off -- > But I cannot know what the many here think ---. I read Mueller and Williams, > Faussett and Cerf, Babtista and Avri but they do not help me know what is > thought in your neighborhood. > > Even private posts are helpful. > > --- On *Thu, 1/14/10, Dina * wrote: > > > From: Dina > > Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Presidencia Internauta" < > presidencia at internauta.org.ar> > Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 10:59 PM > > > *Dear Sergio,* > > *.*** > > *But when I see somebody has got my opinion I see no use to repeat the > same things . OK I agree with those who think the term "reform" sends a > message* that could be > misinterpreted and/or exploited by actors that strongly oppose the IGF > > *Kindest regards* > > * Dina* > ** > > > > > > > --- On *Thu, 1/14/10, Presidencia Internauta < > presidencia at internauta.org.ar>* wrote: > > > From: Presidencia Internauta > Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Carlos A. Afonso" > Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 1:23 PM > >  > Spanish & English > *Spanish* > Estimados todos: Con respecto a lo sugerido por Souter, creo que es > importante la representación de sociedad civil y no la de individuos > aislados. Es necesario que la representación sea de un colectivo de opinión > y voluntad común y no la del sujeto aislado. Lo que se discute acá es > siempre en función del hombre como ser colectivo, como expresión de > intereses comunes y no de intereses individuales, nuestra fortaleza radica > ahí y no en nuestras individualidades. Me sumo a lo expresado por Baudouin > con respecto a seguir lo que se discute en la lista; estoy al tanto de lo > que se discute aunque poco he podido hacer en función de la brecha que > impone el idioma, así y todo estoy todos los días intentando poner mi ingles > lo mejor posible para poder intervenir más. > > Saludos cordiales > > *Sergio Salinas Porto* > > *Internauta A rgentina* > > *Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet* > > *http://www.internauta.org.ar* > > > > *English* > > Dear all: On Souter's suggestion, I think it is important according the > representation of civil society and not isolated individuals. It is > necessary that the representation is a collective opinion and common will > and not the isolated individual, What we discuss here is always in terms of > the man as a collective, as an expression of common interests rather than > individual interests, our strength lies there and not in ours > individualities. I agree with what Baudouin expressed regarding what is > discussed further in the list. I am aware of what is discussed in the list, > but little I could do based on the gap imposed by the language; even so I am > trying every day my English and I put my best to participate more. > Best regards > > *Sergio Salinas Porto* > > *Internauta A rgentina* > > *Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet* > > *http://www.internauta.org.ar* > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carlos A. Afonso" > > > To: > > > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:08 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the > > > Thanks, Jeremy. I agree with the suggestions for modification from > > Souter and others and wait for the updated statement. > > > > frt rgds > > > > --c.a. > > > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:34:55 +0100, Bertrand de La Chapelle > >> > > wrote: > >>> Hi Jeremy, > >>> > >>> Just one (I hope constructive) comment on the interesting draft you > >>> circulated. The title currently is : "Statement on the reform of the > >> IGF". > >>> I believe the use of the term "reform" sends a message that could be > >>> misinterpreted and/or exploited by actors that strongly oppose the IGF > >> > >> Thanks for this point. The title was more of a working title for our > use, > >> not specifically to be used when the document is submitted. Thus, the > word > >> "reform" is not used in the body text. Thus we can, I agree, submit it > >> under a more neutral title such as "Submission of the IGC in taking > stock > >> of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF". > >> > >>> A few minor suggested edits (*in blue* with suppressed words in red) > are > >>> also included in the text. They usually are pointers to coded words in > >> the > >>> UN language or the governmental discussions and it's important for you > to > >>> have them in mind. > >> > >> Thanks, and thanks also to those who have commented on the preamble and > >> paragraph 1 so far. Please, anyone, feel free to move on to paragraphs > 2, 3 > >> and following. I will compile all the suggested changes (where > compatible) > >> in a day or two and re-circulate. > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -----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 > -- “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 gpaque at gmail.com Fri Jan 15 09:38:26 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:08:26 -0430 Subject: [governance] Text of IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF In-Reply-To: <4ca4162f1001140652l5fc81e9cg959fb1d11cc5029e@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B4F00F9.30500@gmail.com> <4ca4162f1001140652l5fc81e9cg959fb1d11cc5029e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B507DE2.7090603@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 15 10:07:33 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:07:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <461940.65984.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Deirdre,   Your concerns are right and your plea is universal. All should strive for better understanding that transcends language. But I must caution you on two matters of rationale. 1. It is illconceived to equate langurage learning as a disability. Some are more talented and more skilled at multilingualism and others are not so gifted. But the normal is one language well. You do my deaf friend an injustice to equate my ignorance of Navajo to his inability to hear as you and I do. Those of us who struggle to understand a foreign additional tongue are not to be afforded the same dispensation as a person with a challenge of disability. 2. Anger at Anglophonia is misplaced. No one designed that. No one conspired that. You must treat it as a "just is" ASEAN is a wonderful organization (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and it "just is" that their most common language is English and so it is most used.   But we speak of contributions to this list. All must be ready to help to understand. Those who generally do not speak up -- have a very wonderful gift of an opportunity to help translate. They can dive right in and contribute in their own lingua. Sometimes we must elevate our ability to work here from a right to a responsibility. In every endeavor there are places for contribution and places of demand to receive. We have found over the years that the best of breed for multilingualism comes not from demand to get but from willingness to contribute. I will fight and die for your right to be included and have your rights, but I cannot and will not do the same for your right not to contribute and not to learn new ways.   (in my southwest American home it is not unusual for my wife and that side of the family to try to leave me out by speaking French and Vietnamese - My side we use Spanish some Native American and a Shockabro Jive. And the best part is that we all are learning new tongues at all times but more importantly new ways to look at things and new ways to incorporate and include cultures and traditions)   Multilingualism must be a positive lifting up or it is a division. --- On Fri, 1/15/10, Deirdre Williams wrote: From: Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" Date: Friday, January 15, 2010, 2:24 PM I realise that this is probably too late and very poorly stated but PLEASE could our contribution include a call for continuing work on facilitation of multilingualism. I am particularly urged to this by the contributions of Baudoin and "Internauta". The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has brought us all together. ALL have the right to speak EACH IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE. (I recognise that the lingua franca of this list is agreed as English, but whatever statement is made will be about the IGF generally) Each of the IGFs I have attended (3 and 4) has expressed concern over access for people with disabilities. In a world perceived as anglophone it is a disability not to speak English. Arrangements for the blind and the deaf have to accommodate themselves to the disability - one doesn't say "learn to see" to a blind person - and are designed to make two way communication possible. Language needs to be given similar attention. One of the most basic of human rights is the right to speak and the right to have access to what is spoken. This is also a matter of language. Deirdre 2010/1/15 Eric Dierker I do not think that this was too hard or too much to ask?  In earlier days we had "me too" posts. Writers and advocates cannot read minds -- especially 400. How do they know when they hit the mark or are offbase. One arguing contributor does not help us to read what many think.   I do my best to contact my friends on the ground from Vladivostok to Tehran, from Cape Cod to Saigon, Falklands to Paris, Johanasberg to Montevideo,,, I read India Times and Al Jazeera, Washington Post (force myself to see some TV and listen to some radio) I study on-line and off -- But I cannot know what the many here think ---. I read Mueller and Williams, Faussett and Cerf, Babtista and Avri but they do not help me know what is thought in your neighborhood.   Even private posts are helpful. --- On Thu, 1/14/10, Dina wrote: From: Dina Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Presidencia Internauta" Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 10:59 PM Dear Sergio, . But when I see somebody has got my opinion  I see no use to repeat the same things . OK I agree with those who think the term "reform" sends a message that could be  misinterpreted and/or exploited by actors that strongly oppose the IGF Kindest regards   Dina     --- On Thu, 1/14/10, Presidencia Internauta wrote: From: Presidencia Internauta Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Carlos A. Afonso" Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 1:23 PM  Spanish & English Spanish Estimados todos: Con respecto a lo sugerido por Souter, creo que es importante la representación de sociedad civil y no la de individuos aislados. Es necesario que la representación sea de un colectivo de opinión y voluntad común y no la del sujeto aislado. Lo que se discute acá es siempre en función del hombre como ser colectivo, como expresión de intereses comunes y no de intereses individuales, nuestra fortaleza radica ahí y no en nuestras individualidades. Me sumo a lo expresado por Baudouin con respecto a seguir lo que se discute en la lista;  estoy al tanto de lo que se discute aunque poco he podido hacer en función de la brecha que impone el idioma, así y todo estoy todos los días intentando poner mi ingles lo mejor posible para poder intervenir más. Saludos cordiales Sergio Salinas Porto Internauta A rgentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet http://www.internauta.org.ar   English Dear all: On Souter's suggestion, I think it is important according the representation of civil society and not isolated individuals. It is necessary that the representation is a collective opinion and common will and not the isolated individual, What we discuss here is always in terms of the man as a collective, as an expression of common interests rather than individual interests, our strength lies there and not in ours individualities.  I agree with what Baudouin expressed regarding what is discussed further in the list. I am aware of what is discussed in the list, but little I could do based on the gap imposed by the language; even so I am trying every day my English and I put my best to participate more. Best regards Sergio Salinas Porto Internauta A rgentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet http://www.internauta.org.ar ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carlos A. Afonso" To: Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the > Thanks, Jeremy. I agree with the suggestions for modification from > Souter and others and wait for the updated statement. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:34:55 +0100, Bertrand de La Chapelle >> wrote: >>> Hi Jeremy, >>> >>> Just one (I hope constructive) comment on the interesting draft you >>> circulated. The title currently is : "Statement on the reform of the >> IGF". >>> I believe the use of the term "reform" sends a message that could be >>> misinterpreted and/or exploited by actors that strongly oppose the IGF >> >> Thanks for this point. The title was more of a working title for our use, >> not specifically to be used when the document is submitted. Thus, the word >> "reform" is not used in the body text. Thus we can, I agree, submit it >> under a more neutral title such as "Submission of the IGC in taking stock >> of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF". >> >>> A few minor suggested edits (*in blue* with suppressed words in red) are >>> also included in the text. They usually are pointers to coded words in >> the >>> UN language or the governmental discussions and it's important for you to >>> have them in mind. >> >> Thanks, and thanks also to those who have commented on the preamble and >> paragraph 1 so far. Please, anyone, feel free to move on to paragraphs 2, 3 >> and following. I will compile all the suggested changes (where compatible) >> in a day or two and re-circulate. >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -----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 -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -----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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Jan 15 10:20:03 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:20:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Text of IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF In-Reply-To: <4B507DE2.7090603@gmail.com> References: <4B4F00F9.30500@gmail.com> <4ca4162f1001140652l5fc81e9cg959fb1d11cc5029e@mail.gmail.com> <4B507DE2.7090603@gmail.com> Message-ID: There has been considerable discussion of how we feel the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) should be reformed. It seems that the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would benefit from a similar consideration. The statement that the IGC is trying to create needed to be started as soon as the IGF was over. I wonder how many of us would have responded then? I include myself among the delinquent, not least because the task of the co-coordinators seemed to me to be established during the recent election as being to facilitate rather than to lead. Therefore anyone could have begun the process. I am personally ashamed that I allowed myself to be sucked into a whirlpool of make-up teaching for the time I was away, and examinations, and temporarily dropped the IGF concerns because "somebody else" would do it. I suspect that, having volunteered involvement, we need to be rigorous in demanding of ourselves a consistent minimum commitment of time no matter what else is going on. Certainly that will be necessary in the time leading up to the Vilnius meeting which is now not much over half of a year away. And we need to use part of that time to respond - even if only to say "Yes" or "No". So that's my "New Year resolution" - I really hope I can keep it. Yes - even if it is now too late - for the IRP statement. Best wishes to everyone for 2010 Deirdre 2010/1/15 Ginger Paque : > Here is the final version of the IRP Statement to the IGF. (below) > > Since there has been almost no response to this Call for Consensus, the IGC > will not be able to endorse the written statement to be submitted today by > the IRP. However, it is still important to review this document, as we can > support it orally in the Open Consultations in Geneva in February. > > I repeat the suggestions made on the list that the IGC support appropriate > statements by other groups. This one seems particularly appropriate for > support by the IGC. However, without more vocal support on this list, we > cannot endorse it. > > Best, Ginger > > > ****************** > Open Consultation IGF 2010 > > INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement > > The comments below from the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition > are our contribution to the Open Consultations for IGF 2010. Each of the > four themes below take stock of IGF 2009 by offering practical suggestions > for the format and planning of IGF 2010. > ... -- “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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 15 10:29:58 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:29:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] French contribution on Reforma In-Reply-To: <954259bd1001141338n648ac6e6r534f96b199b046d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <886640.99614.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> So someone please explain to me this fear of telling the world that good governance is in need of and should constantly be in a state of REFORM.  Doi Moi, Mao's revolution, the New Deal, European Commonwealth, Reforma de Lay.  At least Monarchs are naturally(or prenaturally) reformed on an ongoing basis. Each election cycle is a reform. And then I read these good and true opening words from the French contribution: ""As mentioned during the consultations on the continuation of the IGF held in Sharm el Sheikh, a major value of the flexible format of the IGF is its capacity to constantly evolve its working methods in a self-organizing manner.""   Why not just be honest???   --- On Thu, 1/14/10, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: From: Bertrand de La Chapelle Subject: [governance] French contribution for the IGF February consultations To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 9:38 PM Dear all, For information, you will find attached the contribution I just sent to the IGF Secretariat in the perspective of the February consultation. It explores possible further improvements of the IGF working methods. I hope you'll find it interesting/useful. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -----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 goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Fri Jan 15 10:37:45 2010 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:37:45 -0300 Subject: [governance] Text of IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF In-Reply-To: <4B507DE2.7090603@gmail.com> References: <4B4F00F9.30500@gmail.com> <4ca4162f1001140652l5fc81e9cg959fb1d11cc5029e@mail.gmail.com> <4B507DE2.7090603@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ca4162f1001150737u126c2663t69c82c9b23285454@mail.gmail.com> Thanks Ginger. It´s a pitty that this statement will not be support by IGC. I think that the problem is that there are too much lines of debate open at the same time, all around the same or similar topics -the IGF reforma, taking stocks, etc- and it creates some confusion. I suggest that the IGC could evaluate the possibility to open another kind of collaborative virtual space, like ning for example. Thanks again, and best regards, Roxana 2010/1/15 Ginger Paque > Here is the final version of the IRP Statement to the IGF. (below) > > Since there has been almost no response to this Call for Consensus, the IGC > will not be able to endorse the written statement to be submitted today by > the IRP. However, it is still important to review this document, as we can > support it orally in the Open Consultations in Geneva in February. > > I repeat the suggestions made on the list that the IGC support appropriate > statements by other groups. This one seems particularly appropriate for > support by the IGC. However, without more vocal support on this list, we > cannot endorse it. > > Best, Ginger > > > ****************** > Open Consultation IGF 2010 > > INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement > > The comments below from the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic > Coalition are our contribution to the Open Consultations for IGF 2010. Each > of the four themes below take stock of IGF 2009 by offering practical > suggestions for the format and planning of IGF 2010. > > 1) Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary > sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the internet > age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in general rather than > specific terms. > a. The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding human > rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different stakeholders can or > should play in this regard, and how these play out more specifically in > different Internet governance issue-areas. > b. With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but also > main sessions that look more closely at what a 'human rights agenda', or > 'development agenda for Internet Governance' might actually look like. > Whilst openness and diversity continue to be important issues, we think this > year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy dilemmas > within these broader themes > c. The coalition is ready and willing to contribute to organizing and > facilitating main sessions along these Human Rights related themes. > > 2) General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found the > meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued progress in all > aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or who organised > workshops would like to commend the organisers for their good work in this > regard, particularly given the relatively limited budget and resources > available to the IGF. Aspects that could be paid more attention this year > include: > a. Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become diverted > into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. This is a > key issue however we think it is important to avoid having these issues > sidetrack the topics on hand in main sessions and workshops this year. > b. Continuity and more linking between the main sessions and the > workshops could be strengthened. Clear links in the program by > cross-referencing of session/workshop themes and titles is one way to create > these links before the meeting. During and after the meeting, we would like > to see formal feedback opportunities put in place and integrated into the > stocktaking; from organizers and/or moderators of both main sessions and > workshops. > c. Main sessions based around 'classic' themes of openness, diversity, > and such like need to be supplemented and reinvigorated by including new > themes onto the program. The need for continuity and in-depth discussions of > ongoing themes need to be balanced by new themes as well for this is a > fast-moving area. > d. Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists. This > always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. We realise that > larger panels allow for a greater diversity in some cases. However we would > urge moderators of larger sessions to ensure that there is enough time for > discussion and that when discussion takes place it is dynamic and inclusive > of panellists and other participants. It is important that contributors from > the floor as well as from remote participants get enough time to have their > say and be adequately responded to by panellists and other participants. > e. In light of the above we would also like to see more innovative panel > formats encouraged; modelled on town-hall meetings, brainstorming, and other > sorts of small-group, or interactive forms of discussion for instance. > Formal panels have their place but good work is also done in small > groups/break-out sessions as well. > f. Rather than having main sessions largely based around broad themes, > we think this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy > dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to opening up the > discussion about specific solutions before the actual session. > > 3) Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote > participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific issues > that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller and more > diverse participation in the IGF. > a. Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time or > enough information on how to use the technology provided properly. When > technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on hand so > many moderators found themselves in the role of do-it-yourself technical > supporters. This causes delays, frustration and a loss of focus for > everyone. More information in advance from the IGF in liaison with the > Vilnius venue organisers would be useful. But also during the event, and > given the importance of enabling remote participation but also having it run > smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in this respect is > indispensable. > b. We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote > Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a moderator > on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning. Some-one needs to > monitor remote participation, in partnership with the workshop moderator, in > order to streamline, filter and facilitate remote participation in the > proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based comments, setting up a queue for > spoken interventions, or having remote participants be given the floor en > bloc if this is more practicable. We would also urge all moderators to > understand the many remote participants are doing this at difficult times of > their 24 hour day and that time-lags require careful attention be paid to > timing responses and requests by moderators on the ground. > c. The above points underscore our support for proposals to organise > adequate guidelines as well as a brief training session/module/virtual tour > for all moderators before the IGF meeting. During the meeting is not the > time to experiment. > > 4) Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural, regional, > and linguistic representation remains a core issue for a number of dynamic > coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about continuing to improve remote > participation technically and organizationally relate to these concerns. > Practically there is a need to > a. Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between > discussions and themes from national, regional and international IGFs > better, during the meetings as well as in the record of these various > meetings. At present the public record is piecemeal and not easily > accessible. We recognise that this is process that needs dedicated time and > resources to do so and urge the IGF to put aside some resources for this. > b. Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By this > we mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and specialised > workshops need to be more accessible to 'everyday internet users', any > interested communities or groups from areas where the Internet is either > less extensive or who have other communication priorities. > > > Roxana Goldstein wrote: > > Hi Ginger and all, > > In my humild opinion, I think that it is ok to support this statement. > > Anyway, I think that points 3 and 4 must be core issues for the IGC, and I > suggest to continue debating here about them, and how to improve the IGFs > -global, regional, national, preparatory meetings, etc.- in this regard. > > Best, > Roxana > > > > 2010/1/14 Ginger Paque > >> Hello all: this is the current draft of the IRP contribution, which is up >> for Consensus for IGC support. There will be a "tightened" draft later, >> probably this afternoon, but this appears to be the essence of the >> statement. >> >> Please read it carefully, and advise whether the IGC should sign on in >> support of this statement. This is independent of any IGC statement. >> >> We need to do this quickly if we want to ask the IRP to add our signature >> to their written contribution. Please post. >> >> >> Open Consultation IGF 2010 >> >> INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement >> >> The IRP Dynamic Coalition would like to contribute to the Open >> Consultation for IGF 2010 in two areas: observations for taking stock of IGF >> 2009 and suggestions for the format and agenda of the Vilnius meeting. The >> comments below are organised under [..] themes, under which we take stock of >> IGF 2009 and then offer practical suggestions for the format and planning of >> IGF 2010. >> >> 1) General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found >> the meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued progress in all >> aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or who organised >> workshops would like to commend the organisers for their good work in this >> regard, particularly given the relatively limited budget and resources >> available to the IGF. Some specific concerns include: >> a. Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become >> diverted into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. >> We think it is time to move on and to keep these issues from overwhelming >> the topics in hand. >> b. Continuity and more explicit links between the main sessions and >> the workshops could have been stronger. Clear links in the program by >> cross-referencing of session/workshop themes and titles is one way to create >> these links before the meeting. During and after the meeting, we would like >> to see formal feedback opportunities put in place and integrated into the >> stocktaking; from organizers and/or moderators of both main sessions and >> workshops. >> c. Main sessions based around the "traditional" themes of openness, >> diversity, and such like started to feel a bit repetitive particularly in >> relation to the freshness of new themes introduced onto the program. The >> need for continuity and depth needs to be balanced by new themes as well >> d. Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists. This >> always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. Moderators of larger >> sessions need to find ways to ensure that discussion actually takes place >> and when it does it dynamic and inclusive. To this end we would suggest that >> there is an upper limit set on the number of panellists and/or length of >> formal presentations. Moreover that enough time is set aside for discussion. >> It is important that contributions from the floor, and remote participants >> get enough time to have their say and be adequately responded to by >> panellists and other participants. >> e. Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, we >> think this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy >> dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to opening up the >> discussion about specific solutions before the actual session. >> >> 2) Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote >> participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific issues >> that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller and more >> diverse participation in the IGF. >> a. Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time or >> enough information on how to use the technology provided properly. When >> technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on hand so >> many moderators found themselves doing DIY instead. This is unprofessional >> and causes delays and loss of focus for everyone. More information in >> advance from IGF HQ would be useful. But also during the event, and given >> the importance of enabling remote participation but also having it run >> smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in this respect is >> indispensable. >> b. We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote >> Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a moderator >> on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning. Some-one needs to >> monitor remote participation, in partnership with the workshop moderator, in >> order to streamline, filter and facilitate remote participation in the >> proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based comments, setting up a queue for >> spoken interventions, or having remote participants be given the floor en >> bloc if this is more practicable. We would also urge all moderators to >> understand the many remote participants are doing this at difficult times of >> their 24 hour day and that time-lags require careful attention be paid to >> timing responses and requests by moderators on the ground. >> c. The above points underscore our support for proposals to organise >> adequate guidelines as well as a brief training session/module/virtual tour >> for all moderators before the IGF meeting. During the meeting is not the >> time to experiment. >> >> 3) Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary >> sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the internet >> age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in general rather than >> specific terms. >> a. The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding >> human rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different stakeholders >> can or should play in this regard, and how these play out more specifically >> in different Internet governance issue-areas. >> b. With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but also >> main sessions that look more closely at what a "human rights agenda" or >> "development agenda: for Internet Governance might actually look like. >> Discussions around broad themes such as openness and diversity have already >> taken place. It is time to get down to specifics and we do not see why these >> specifics always have to be covered in workshop sessions. >> >> 4) Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural, >> regional, and linguistic representation remains a core issue for a number of >> dynamic coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about continuing to improve >> remote participation technically and organizationally relate to these >> concerns. Practically there is a need to >> a. Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between >> discussions and themes from national, regional and international IGFs >> better, during the meetings as well as in the record of these various >> meetings. At present the public record is piecemeal and not easily >> accessible. We recognise that this is process that needs dedicated time and >> resources to do so and urge the IGF to put aside some resources for this. >> b. Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By >> this we mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and specialised >> workshops need to be more accessible not only to 'everyday internet users' >> but also for any communities or groups from areas where the Internet is >> either less extensive or who have other communication priorities. >> >> ********************************************************************88 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dr Marianne Franklin >> Reader >> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program >> Media & Communications >> Goldsmiths, University of London >> New Cross >> London SE14 6NW >> United Kingdom >> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072 >> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616 >> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk >> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php >> >> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 15 10:43:09 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:43:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Bottom Paragraphs Please Respond Message-ID: <692105.40833.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I guess I just am surpised and don't believe these are the right terms:   A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings.  Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting.     Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working groups).  In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 15 11:13:39 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:13:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] French contribution on Reforma In-Reply-To: <886640.99614.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <954259bd1001141338n648ac6e6r534f96b199b046d@mail.gmail.com> <886640.99614.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <954259bd1001150813p3ef3e7fcu276085899d0a1443@mail.gmail.com> Dear Eric, Thanks for your appreciation of the French contribution. However, as you may have noticed from a previous post from Jeremy on this list, I have issued a note of caution upon the use of the term "reform" in this case. It is useful to make a distinction between "reform of the IGF" and "constant evolution of the IGF working methods in a self-organizing manner". The term "reform" implies a strong approach and seem to suppose a preliminary negative assessment of the object of the reform. As the Merriam-Webster dictionary indicates in its definition : *REFORM* *transitive verb* *1 a* *:* to put or change into an improved form or condition *b* *:* to amend or improve by change of form or *removal of faults or abuses* *2* *:* to *put an end to an evil* by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action *3* *:* to induce or cause to *abandon evil ways* . This is even stronger for the noun : *1* *:* amendment of what is defective, vicious, corrupt, or depraved *2* *:* a removal or correction of an abuse, a wrong, or errors The latin etymology (re+formare) also evokes a somewhat radical structural reconstruction. On the other hand, the verb "improve" would have a more positive tone per the same source : *IMPROVE **1* *:* to advance or make progress in what is desirable *2* *:* to make useful additions or amendments Finally, the term employed in the French contribution, "evolution" introduces the notion of process that feels appropriate here : *EVOLUTION* *2 ** **c **(1)* *:* a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state** *(2)* *:* a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance ** *3* *:* the process of working out or developing In view of the above, should the IGF use the expression "Reform of the IGF" as the overarching angle of its contribution, it would naturally be understood as putting the accent on criticism rather than the possible progress; it could further give the surprising impression that civil society actors on this list position themselves on the outside of a precious and fragile process that is more open to them than any in the international arena, that they largely initiated and very positively contributed to shape so far. As mentioned in a previous mail, discussions within and statements from the Internet Governance Caucus do carry weight in the broader community : this brings additional responsibility to the IGC in defining precisely the content and tone of its messages, in order to make sure that they are not misused or misinterpreted. This does not prevent suggestions for significant improvements, on the contrary, as I hope our contribution illustrates. I hope these elements help and respond to your interrogations. Thank you in any case for having raised the point, which led me to examine the above definitions that (fortunately) confirmed my initial gut feeling in the preparation of this contribution. Best Bertrand On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > So someone please explain to me this fear of telling the world that good > governance is in need of and should constantly be in a state of *REFORM*. > Doi Moi, Mao's revolution, the New Deal, European Commonwealth, Reforma de > Lay. At least Monarchs are naturally(or prenaturally) reformed on an > ongoing basis. Each election cycle is a reform. And then I read these good > and true opening words from the French contribution: > ""As mentioned during the consultations on the continuation of the IGF > held in Sharm el Sheikh, a major value of the flexible format of the IGF is > its capacity to constantly evolve its working methods *in a > self-organizing manner*."" > > Why not just be honest??? > > > --- On *Thu, 1/14/10, Bertrand de La Chapelle *wrote: > > > From: Bertrand de La Chapelle > Subject: [governance] French contribution for the IGF February > consultations > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" > Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 9:38 PM > > Dear all, > > For information, you will find attached the contribution I just sent to the > IGF Secretariat in the perspective of the February consultation. It explores > possible further improvements of the IGF working methods. > > I hope you'll find it interesting/useful. > > Best > > Bertrand > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > -----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 > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Jan 15 11:46:51 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:46:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments? Message-ID: <176CE6EA-7FE8-4205-BD4A-D11D6A06582C@ciroap.org> Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular stakeholder groups as it is at present. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations publicly. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating to the IGF's structure and processes. Many of the IGC's members believe that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions about the future structure and processes of the IGF. A second aspect in which there is room for further improvement in the accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that for instance the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. Many of our members believe that this should include the development of an ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. About the IGC The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. -- 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 Fri Jan 15 13:12:22 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:12:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments? In-Reply-To: <176CE6EA-7FE8-4205-BD4A-D11D6A06582C@ciroap.org> References: <176CE6EA-7FE8-4205-BD4A-D11D6A06582C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B50B006.4090203@wzb.eu> Hi Jeremy, thanks for posting an updated version. You did not include Ian's comments did you? I have more issues with the text, I just havn't posted them yet since I thought we would proceed para by para. jeanette Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of > the IGF* > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation > of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of > Internet-related public policy issues. However if, as we hope, the > forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number > of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing > the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in > 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an > institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain formally > convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a > Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department > of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the > composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the > stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular > stakeholder groups as it is at present. Many also believe that the > stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG > members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for > example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing > list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations > publicly. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation > of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating > to the IGF's structure and processes. Many of the IGC's members believe > that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, > ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions > about the future structure and processes of the IGF. > > A second aspect in which there is room for further improvement in the > accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the > substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this > responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that for instance > the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil > society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was > not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. > > The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation > towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount > to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our > members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs > take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to > relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through > publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. > > Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to > maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work > program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. Many of > our members believe that this should include the development of an > ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through > online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. > > Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can > be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working > groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a > better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their > outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to > set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, > democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, > which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from > civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender > representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage > with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > *About the IGC* > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are > actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the > lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our > mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet > governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual > subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. > More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org > . > > -- > > *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 Jan 15 13:13:35 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:43:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> Hi Jeanette, The proposal continues to bother me a lot in its possible wider ramifications. So excuse me to seek some clarifications, and engage in a bit of debate on the issue. Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > > we discussed some of the implications you mention below. > > This year's meetings following the February meeting could be regarded > as an experiment to find out if a MAG is needed at all. But why this experiment and not many others that could be attempted. Like MAG taking a more pro-active role of doing more inter-sessional work, preparing background papers etc - stuff which has been a part of many a proposals for IGF evolution, including from the IGC. I think this thing being done in the name of an experiment can be very pre-emptive. > Perhaps open planning meetings such as the one we had in September > 2009 are sufficient for setting the agenda; perhaps the need for some > sort of steering committee does arise, perhaps not. The view that the MAG does and should only do the narrow work of setting a very broad agenda presupposes that only one part of the WSIS mandate for the IGF - acting as a policy discussion space (and that too in a largely unstructured way) - is relevant and should ever be attempted. This is what I mean by saying that the 'experiment' is pre-emptive. Without MAG - in fact ,without a MAG that takes up a larger set of goals and activities - these other parts of the IGF mandate can just not begun to be addressed. > > Since it is unclear whether after 2010 there will be a new mandate for > an IGF and if so, whether the new IGF will continue to have a > secretariat and a non-bureau like preparatory structure, this year's > preparation seems to be a good opportunity to experiment with > processes that are more open and transparent and less burdensome. Burdensome! Well that depends on what we look to the IGF to achieve. and it is well known that there are very different views on this subject. So why a certain view at one end of the spectrum is made to look like the obvious and natural one, and processes being described as burdensome or not in relation to that view of the IGF's objective. Any serious difficult work can look burdensome. Helping along global policy making can look burdensome, but to others it may be immensely necessary, and also mandated by the WSIS. IGC has often sought that IGF/MAG does inter-sessional work, form WGs, develop background material, make more specific agenda with specific questions of policy (IRP dynamic coalition's recent statement too seeks this)... any of this may look burdensome, but still be very necessary to evolve towards. What happens to all those demands of the IGC and many others? Why cant we do some experiment towards this direction rather than in the opposite direction to it? > The annual rotation does involve a lot of work for both the > secretariat and all stakeholder groups. Now, I dont see why simply extending the term of the old MAG does not solve that problem. Why should it entail an experiment to see if MAG is at all necessary or not. That too an experiment done in the year when some new 'text' on IGF processes etc may get written as a part of its renewal. A couple of different things are being mixed here which are needed to be separated. First is the issue of nominating new members for the purpose of rotation of MAG members. While I am for going ahead and doing the rotation, even if we do not want to, simply extending the tenure of the old MAG solves this problem. (I still dont have the answer to my question whether there will be any MAG at all post Feb.) So, the 'do we even need a MAG' experiment seems to not have much to do with the rotation issue, does it. Second is the wrapping up of this issue in the very tempting cover of more openness. (As an aside I may mention that many who seem to support the no-MAG experiment did not support the proposal that the discussion list of MAG be public, which is a contradiction if the most pressing objective here may just be 'openness'.) Greater openness and even participation is a very different issue than doing away with a representative body, which may be required to accomplish many task that cannot be done by 'open houses'. We all know there are many such tasks, some of them stated above as expectations expressed by the IGC from the IGF process. So if we indeed want to explore experiments and people's views and where to move forward from here, we can as well be posing questions like "Do you think IGF should accomplish certain objectives, beyond what it may be achieving at present? If so. will it require a more structured IGF, with an active core representative multistakeholder group steering it?" And in the spirit of these questions experiment with a few different activities and ways of work in the MAG, instead of a do-we-need-a-MAG-at-all experiment. Parminder > > jeanette > > Parminder wrote: >> Hi All >> >> I just now posted the following message to the IGF MAG list. More >> openness is always welcome but there are also some larger structural >> questions about the mandate and efficacy of the IGF which worry me >> since the proposal of 'only open meetings' has been made in >> connection with the need or not of renewing the MAG. I will posit >> these larger questions a little later while I share my mentioned >> email. Parminder >> >> (Disclosure: I am some kind of a member of the MAG system and am >> funded for attending its meeting. However, to be fair to me, I was >> also funded to attend the planning meeting in Sept which was *not* a >> MAG meeting.) >> >> Dear Markus and others, >> >> A couple of questions come to my mind regarding the new proposal >> which could merit some discussion. >> >> Does this mean that there will be no MAG post Feb? (I understand that >> MAG could exist while there be only open planning meeting as in Sept >> last.) >> >> If so, have we looked at all the implication - tangible and >> intangible - of there being no MAG in existence for a whole year in >> the run-up to an IGF meeting, and during the meeting? >> >> Does this in fact suggest that we could anyway more or less do >> without a MAG, and a couple of open preparatory/ planning meetings in >> Geneva, outcomes of which are culled/interpreted by the secretariat, >> is all that is needed to hold the IGF and comply with the WSIS >> requirements? >> >> Does trying out this practice in the year of possible structural >> changes to the IGF - possibly taken up along with its renewal if it >> comes - can have even more special significance? >> >> Thanks and best regards >> >> Parminder >> >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> the MAG started discussing the issue of rotation for this year. Some >>> people were in favor of an extended term for the present membership >>> because it is not clear if the IGF's mandate will be extended and, >>> should it be extended, under what terms. It could be that the MAG >>> meeting in May would be the only one for the new MAG. >>> >>> I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on this >>> matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. This >>> afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came up with a >>> third solution. Markus just sent the following message to the MAG >>> list and asked me to forward it to the caucus list as well. I expect >>> the caucus will be happy about the proposed solution? >>> >>> Dear colleagues, >>> >>> Jeanette has got a point! It might not go down well if any decision >>> were taken in this matter without consulting the broader community! >>> However, as there is a distinct possibility that a renewed MAG will >>> hold one meeting only, there is also a strong argument against >>> launching the heavy rotation machinery just for the sake of this >>> principle. >>> >>> I consulted with Jeanette and going through the pros and cons of >>> both approaches we both came to the conclusion that there might be a >>> third way. We both wondered whether there was any need for a closed >>> meeting at all in May. As last September's planning meeting went >>> rather well, we wondered whether we could not prepare most of this >>> year's meeting in an open process. By doing so, we would also take >>> into account the calls for more inclusiveness and transparency made >>> during the consultation in Sharm. >>> >>> The MAG would thus meet a last time next month and set the agenda >>> for the Vilnius meeting. The programme could be fleshed out in two >>> open planning meetings in May and June. >>> >>> This could also be an experiment in view of a possible renewal of >>> the mandate. Should the mandate be renewed, any decision on how to >>> continue could be taken in light of this experiment. >>> >>> Please let me know what you think about this possible approach. >>> >>> Best regards >>> Markus >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 ocl at gih.com Fri Jan 15 13:22:55 2010 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:22:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments? In-Reply-To: <176CE6EA-7FE8-4205-BD4A-D11D6A06582C@ciroap.org> References: <176CE6EA-7FE8-4205-BD4A-D11D6A06582C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B50B27F.70102@gih.com> Jeremy, Le 15/01/2010 17:46, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting > of the IGF* > > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, > which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from > civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender > representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively > engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed > term. > > *About the IGC* > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are > actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the > lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our > mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet > governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual > subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. > More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org > . > > Thank you for writing this statement but I am really sorry - I *strongly* object to the statement as it is currently phrased. Okay - I'm not sure whether I am "allowed" to be saying this, but whilst I think that your writing style and ability is impeccable, and whilst I agree with some of the points developed, I also need to point out that the statements which make up this submission are seriously misleading about the amount of support this statement has behind it. In a previous message, you said: "There were 36 responses to the survey; 26 full, and 10 partial (since no questions were compulsory). This amounts to about a quarter of our membership, which isn't bad at all in my opinion. " Am I correct to assume that the IGC statement is based on these responses? In the IGC statement, you now mention "400 individuals" in mailing lists - so as far as I understand, you're got responses from less than 10% of the coalition's individuals. You therefore *cannot* have sentences in the release saying: "We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society" or comments such as: "it is widely accepted" or "Many also believe" because the opinions you are describing, are from an absolute minority of IGC members. Either that, or you should not use the figure of "400 individuals" in the statement and should mention somewhere that only 36 responses were received. I'm sorry Jeremy, for having to write such an email. I am not criticising you in person: I think you did a great job of trying to pull some text together in such a short length of time, but I am concerned about the IGC's actual *legitimacy* in the face of such a statement. The fault for a "failure to have a consensus document written in time" falls onto our collective shoulders - and I will stand out there and say "yes I have failed to take the time to help this year, I am sorry, and I'll try to do better next time", and I hope that others will too. But in times of doubt, wisdom directs that strong statements are not made for the sake of making strong statements. If you are in doubt about what the IGC really wishes to say, then, please do not include ambiguities that make consensus appear where it is not, or crowds appear where there's just a handful of people. A "strong" statement can just end up being a "wrong" statement, and that's not good for anybody. Warmest regards, -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 15 13:59:18 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:59:18 -0200 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I agree with Parminder. The MAG is as relevant as its members want (and strive for) it to be. Just like the IGF, the MAG has room for improvement and I believe we should collective put pressure for these improvements to happen if the mandate is renewed. There are several issues that the MAG could become involved with. In the Remote Participation Working Group´s taking stocks document, we suggest a more proactive role of the MAG in remote participation. Putting in place remote participation is a huge task and it definitely needs multistakeholder involvement. The MAG would have an important role to play, if the body wishes to do it. For now, the extension of the mandate + holding MAG meetings seems like the best option. Best regards Marília On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Parminder wrote: > Hi Jeanette, > > The proposal continues to bother me a lot in its possible wider > ramifications. So excuse me to seek some clarifications, and engage in a bit > of debate on the issue. > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > Hi, > > we discussed some of the implications you mention below. > > This year's meetings following the February meeting could be regarded as an > experiment to find out if a MAG is needed at all. > > But why this experiment and not many others that could be attempted. Like > MAG taking a more pro-active role of doing more inter-sessional work, > preparing background papers etc - stuff which has been a part of many a > proposals for IGF evolution, including from the IGC. I think this thing > being done in the name of an experiment can be very pre-emptive. > > Perhaps open planning meetings such as the one we had in September 2009 > are sufficient for setting the agenda; perhaps the need for some sort of > steering committee does arise, perhaps not. > > The view that the MAG does and should only do the narrow work of setting a > very broad agenda presupposes that only one part of the WSIS mandate for the > IGF - acting as a policy discussion space (and that too in a largely > unstructured way) - is relevant and should ever be attempted. This is what I > mean by saying that the 'experiment' is pre-emptive. Without MAG - in fact > ,without a MAG that takes up a larger set of goals and activities - these > other parts of the IGF mandate can just not begun to be addressed. > > > Since it is unclear whether after 2010 there will be a new mandate for an > IGF and if so, whether the new IGF will continue to have a secretariat and a > non-bureau like preparatory structure, this year's preparation seems to be a > good opportunity to experiment with processes that are more open and > transparent and less burdensome. > > Burdensome! Well that depends on what we look to the IGF to achieve. and it > is well known that there are very different views on this subject. So why a > certain view at one end of the spectrum is made to look like the obvious and > natural one, and processes being described as burdensome or not in relation > to that view of the IGF's objective. > > Any serious difficult work can look burdensome. Helping along global > policy making can look burdensome, but to others it may be immensely > necessary, and also mandated by the WSIS. IGC has often sought that IGF/MAG > does inter-sessional work, form WGs, develop background material, make more > specific agenda with specific questions of policy (IRP dynamic coalition's > recent statement too seeks this)... any of this may look burdensome, but > still be very necessary to evolve towards. What happens to all those demands > of the IGC and many others? Why cant we do some experiment towards this > direction rather than in the opposite direction to it? > > The annual rotation does involve a lot of work for both the secretariat and > all stakeholder groups. > > Now, I dont see why simply extending the term of the old MAG does not solve > that problem. Why should it entail an experiment to see if MAG is at all > necessary or not. That too an experiment done in the year when some new > 'text' on IGF processes etc may get written as a part of its renewal. > > A couple of different things are being mixed here which are needed to be > separated. First is the issue of nominating new members for the purpose of > rotation of MAG members. While I am for going ahead and doing the rotation, > even if we do not want to, simply extending the tenure of the old MAG solves > this problem. (I still dont have the answer to my question whether there > will be any MAG at all post Feb.) > > So, the 'do we even need a MAG' experiment seems to not have much to do > with the rotation issue, does it. > > Second is the wrapping up of this issue in the very tempting cover of more > openness. (As an aside I may mention that many who seem to support the > no-MAG experiment did not support the proposal that the discussion list > of MAG be public, which is a contradiction if the most pressing objective > here may just be 'openness'.) Greater openness and even participation is a > very different issue than doing away with a representative body, which may > be required to accomplish many task that cannot be done by 'open houses'. We > all know there are many such tasks, some of them stated above as > expectations expressed by the IGC from the IGF process. > > So if we indeed want to explore experiments and people's views and where to > move forward from here, we can as well be posing questions like > > "Do you think IGF should accomplish certain objectives, beyond what it may > be achieving at present? If so. will it require a more structured IGF, with > an active core representative multistakeholder group steering it?" > > And in the spirit of these questions experiment with a few different > activities and ways of work in the MAG, instead of a do-we-need-a-MAG-at-all > experiment. > > Parminder > > > jeanette > > Parminder wrote: > > Hi All > > I just now posted the following message to the IGF MAG list. More openness > is always welcome but there are also some larger structural questions about > the mandate and efficacy of the IGF which worry me since the proposal of > 'only open meetings' has been made in connection with the need or not of > renewing the MAG. I will posit these larger questions a little later while I > share my mentioned email. Parminder > > (Disclosure: I am some kind of a member of the MAG system and am funded for > attending its meeting. However, to be fair to me, I was also funded to > attend the planning meeting in Sept which was *not* a MAG meeting.) > > Dear Markus and others, > > A couple of questions come to my mind regarding the new proposal which > could merit some discussion. > > Does this mean that there will be no MAG post Feb? (I understand that MAG > could exist while there be only open planning meeting as in Sept last.) > > If so, have we looked at all the implication - tangible and intangible - of > there being no MAG in existence for a whole year in the run-up to an IGF > meeting, and during the meeting? > > Does this in fact suggest that we could anyway more or less do without a > MAG, and a couple of open preparatory/ planning meetings in Geneva, outcomes > of which are culled/interpreted by the secretariat, is all that is needed to > hold the IGF and comply with the WSIS requirements? > > Does trying out this practice in the year of possible structural changes to > the IGF - possibly taken up along with its renewal if it comes - can have > even more special significance? > > Thanks and best regards > > Parminder > > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > Hi, > > the MAG started discussing the issue of rotation for this year. Some people > were in favor of an extended term for the present membership because it is > not clear if the IGF's mandate will be extended and, should it be extended, > under what terms. It could be that the MAG meeting in May would be the only > one for the new MAG. > > I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on this matter > without consulting the various stakeholder groups. This afternoon, Markus > and I discussed the options and we came up with a third solution. Markus > just sent the following message to the MAG list and asked me to forward it > to the caucus list as well. I expect the caucus will be happy about the > proposed solution? > > Dear colleagues, > > Jeanette has got a point! It might not go down well if any decision were > taken in this matter without consulting the broader community! However, as > there is a distinct possibility that a renewed MAG will hold one meeting > only, there is also a strong argument against launching the heavy rotation > machinery just for the sake of this principle. > > I consulted with Jeanette and going through the pros and cons of both > approaches we both came to the conclusion that there might be a third way. > We both wondered whether there was any need for a closed meeting at all in > May. As last September's planning meeting went rather well, we wondered > whether we could not prepare most of this year's meeting in an open process. > By doing so, we would also take into account the calls for more > inclusiveness and transparency made during the consultation in Sharm. > > The MAG would thus meet a last time next month and set the agenda for the > Vilnius meeting. The programme could be fleshed out in two open planning > meetings in May and June. > > This could also be an experiment in view of a possible renewal of the > mandate. Should the mandate be renewed, any decision on how to continue > could be taken in light of this experiment. > > Please let me know what you think about this possible approach. > > Best regards > Markus > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 of Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Jan 15 14:03:41 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:03:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> Hi Parminder, Parminder wrote: > Hi Jeanette, > > The proposal continues to bother me a lot in its possible wider > ramifications. So excuse me to seek some clarifications, and engage in a > bit of debate on the issue. I have no problem with that, on the contrary. > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Hi, >> >> we discussed some of the implications you mention below. >> >> This year's meetings following the February meeting could be regarded >> as an experiment to find out if a MAG is needed at all. > But why this experiment and not many others that could be attempted. > Like MAG taking a more pro-active role of doing more inter-sessional > work, preparing background papers etc - stuff which has been a part of > many a proposals for IGF evolution, including from the IGC. I think this > thing being done in the name of an experiment can be very pre-emptive. > >> Perhaps open planning meetings such as the one we had in September >> 2009 are sufficient for setting the agenda; perhaps the need for some >> sort of steering committee does arise, perhaps not. > The view that the MAG does and should only do the narrow work of setting > a very broad agenda You are linking two things that seem to me indirectly connected: the task(s) of the MAG and the selection of its membership. The idea to open the MAG for its two meetings in May and June seemed a good idea as it catches 2 birds with one stone. This way, we increase the transparency of the MAG's work and we avoid the rotation process in the face of an uncertain future. Everybody can join and help organize the next meeting. Hence, opening up the meeting shouldn't have an impact on the MAG's agenda or tasks. presupposes that only one part of the WSIS mandate > for the IGF - acting as a policy discussion space (and that too in a > largely unstructured way) - is relevant and should ever be attempted. > This is what I mean by saying that the 'experiment' is pre-emptive. > Without MAG - in fact ,without a MAG that takes up a larger set of goals > and activities - these other parts of the IGF mandate can just not begun > to be addressed. After 4 years of MAG I would say that the interpretation of the MAG's responsibilities depends to some degree on its (rotating) membership. I can well imagine that the MAG or any other future advisory group might consider taking over other tasks. If I understand you correctly, Parminder, you imply that only a formally constituted group with a exlusive membership could take over broader responsibilities? If so, I havn't thought about this enough to agree or disagree with you on this. >> >> Since it is unclear whether after 2010 there will be a new mandate for >> an IGF and if so, whether the new IGF will continue to have a >> secretariat and a non-bureau like preparatory structure, this year's >> preparation seems to be a good opportunity to experiment with >> processes that are more open and transparent and less burdensome. > Burdensome! Well that depends on what we look to the IGF to achieve. and > it is well known that there are very different views on this subject. So > why a certain view at one end of the spectrum is made to look like the > obvious and natural one, and processes being described as burdensome or > not in relation to that view of the IGF's objective. > > Any serious difficult work can look burdensome. Helping along global > policy making can look burdensome, but to others it may be immensely > necessary, and also mandated by the WSIS. IGC has often sought that > IGF/MAG does inter-sessional work, form WGs, develop background > material, make more specific agenda with specific questions of policy > (IRP dynamic coalition's recent statement too seeks this)... any of this > may look burdensome, but still be very necessary to evolve towards. What > happens to all those demands of the IGC and many others? Why cant we do > some experiment towards this direction rather than in the opposite > direction to it? I remember that we have discussed this issue before. I also remember that I disagreed with your view on the current state of things. In my view, the regional IGFs are evolving into a bottom-up process of inter-sessional meetings. The fact that they are geographically organized doesn't mean that there is no link between them. What I like about these regional efforts is that they were not centrally organized but emerged from local initiatives. I think this is a much better way of creating a dense network of IGF related processes and structures than to empower a body such as the MAG to do so. >> The annual rotation does involve a lot of work for both the >> secretariat and all stakeholder groups. > Now, I dont see why simply extending the term of the old MAG does not > solve that problem. As I said on the MAG list, I would find it unacceptable if the MAG simply extended its term without asking those who nominated the present members in the first place. The little reaction on the MAG list suggests that not many members share this point of view. I'd assume that the caucus would have loudly protested if we had just announced that we wouldn't rotate this year but just serve another term. Rightly so in my opinion. Why should it entail an experiment to see if MAG is > at all necessary or not. The question is whether or not the MAG needs to be an exclusive club. You attended the meeting last September. It did work well, didn't it? > So, the 'do we even need a MAG' experiment seems to not have much to do > with the rotation issue, does it. It does also reflect the open meeting in September. It is good to get those who organize workshops and main session fully and early involved. I leave at that. I think others should chip in as well. jeanette > > Second is the wrapping up of this issue in the very tempting cover of > more openness. (As an aside I may mention that many who seem to support > the no-MAG experiment did not support the proposal that the discussion > list of MAG be public, which is a contradiction if the most pressing > objective here may just be 'openness'.) Greater openness and even > participation is a very different issue than doing away with a > representative body, which may be required to accomplish many task that > cannot be done by 'open houses'. We all know there are many such tasks, > some of them stated above as expectations expressed by the IGC from the > IGF process. > > So if we indeed want to explore experiments and people's views and where > to move forward from here, we can as well be posing questions like > > "Do you think IGF should accomplish certain objectives, beyond what it > may be achieving at present? If so. will it require a more structured > IGF, with an active core representative multistakeholder group steering > it?" > > And in the spirit of these questions experiment with a few different > activities and ways of work in the MAG, instead of a > do-we-need-a-MAG-at-all experiment. > > Parminder >> >> jeanette >> >> Parminder wrote: >>> Hi All >>> >>> I just now posted the following message to the IGF MAG list. More >>> openness is always welcome but there are also some larger structural >>> questions about the mandate and efficacy of the IGF which worry me >>> since the proposal of 'only open meetings' has been made in >>> connection with the need or not of renewing the MAG. I will posit >>> these larger questions a little later while I share my mentioned >>> email. Parminder >>> >>> (Disclosure: I am some kind of a member of the MAG system and am >>> funded for attending its meeting. However, to be fair to me, I was >>> also funded to attend the planning meeting in Sept which was *not* a >>> MAG meeting.) >>> >>> Dear Markus and others, >>> >>> A couple of questions come to my mind regarding the new proposal >>> which could merit some discussion. >>> >>> Does this mean that there will be no MAG post Feb? (I understand that >>> MAG could exist while there be only open planning meeting as in Sept >>> last.) >>> >>> If so, have we looked at all the implication - tangible and >>> intangible - of there being no MAG in existence for a whole year in >>> the run-up to an IGF meeting, and during the meeting? >>> >>> Does this in fact suggest that we could anyway more or less do >>> without a MAG, and a couple of open preparatory/ planning meetings in >>> Geneva, outcomes of which are culled/interpreted by the secretariat, >>> is all that is needed to hold the IGF and comply with the WSIS >>> requirements? >>> >>> Does trying out this practice in the year of possible structural >>> changes to the IGF - possibly taken up along with its renewal if it >>> comes - can have even more special significance? >>> >>> Thanks and best regards >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> the MAG started discussing the issue of rotation for this year. Some >>>> people were in favor of an extended term for the present membership >>>> because it is not clear if the IGF's mandate will be extended and, >>>> should it be extended, under what terms. It could be that the MAG >>>> meeting in May would be the only one for the new MAG. >>>> >>>> I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on this >>>> matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. This >>>> afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came up with a >>>> third solution. Markus just sent the following message to the MAG >>>> list and asked me to forward it to the caucus list as well. I expect >>>> the caucus will be happy about the proposed solution? >>>> >>>> Dear colleagues, >>>> >>>> Jeanette has got a point! It might not go down well if any decision >>>> were taken in this matter without consulting the broader community! >>>> However, as there is a distinct possibility that a renewed MAG will >>>> hold one meeting only, there is also a strong argument against >>>> launching the heavy rotation machinery just for the sake of this >>>> principle. >>>> >>>> I consulted with Jeanette and going through the pros and cons of >>>> both approaches we both came to the conclusion that there might be a >>>> third way. We both wondered whether there was any need for a closed >>>> meeting at all in May. As last September's planning meeting went >>>> rather well, we wondered whether we could not prepare most of this >>>> year's meeting in an open process. By doing so, we would also take >>>> into account the calls for more inclusiveness and transparency made >>>> during the consultation in Sharm. >>>> >>>> The MAG would thus meet a last time next month and set the agenda >>>> for the Vilnius meeting. The programme could be fleshed out in two >>>> open planning meetings in May and June. >>>> >>>> This could also be an experiment in view of a possible renewal of >>>> the mandate. Should the mandate be renewed, any decision on how to >>>> continue could be taken in light of this experiment. >>>> >>>> Please let me know what you think about this possible approach. >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> Markus >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 15 14:23:03 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 06:23:03 +1100 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments? In-Reply-To: <4B50B006.4090203@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Jeanette is right, my comments have not been included in this draft (an easy enough oversight as I know) > From: Jeanette Hofmann > Reply-To: , Jeanette Hofmann > Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:12:22 +0000 > To: , Jeremy Malcolm > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments? > > Hi Jeremy, thanks for posting an updated version. You did not include > Ian's comments did you? > > I have more issues with the text, I just havn't posted them yet since I > thought we would proceed para by para. > > jeanette > > > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of >> the IGF* >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation >> of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of >> Internet-related public policy issues. However if, as we hope, the >> forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number >> of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing >> the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in >> 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an >> institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain formally >> convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a >> Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department >> of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). >> >> One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the >> composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the >> stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular >> stakeholder groups as it is at present. Many also believe that the >> stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG >> members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for >> example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing >> list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations >> publicly. >> >> One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation >> of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating >> to the IGF's structure and processes. Many of the IGC's members believe >> that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, >> ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions >> about the future structure and processes of the IGF. >> >> A second aspect in which there is room for further improvement in the >> accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the >> substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this >> responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that for instance >> the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil >> society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was >> not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. >> >> The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation >> towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount >> to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our >> members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs >> take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to >> relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through >> publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. >> >> Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to >> maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work >> program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. Many of >> our members believe that this should include the development of an >> ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through >> online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. >> >> Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can >> be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working >> groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a >> better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their >> outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to >> set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, >> democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. >> >> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, >> which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from >> civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender >> representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage >> with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. >> >> *About the IGC* >> >> The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are >> actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the >> lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our >> mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet >> governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual >> subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. >> More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org >> . >> >> -- >> >> *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 >> > nt1stParentNodeID=89765>. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 15 14:27:35 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:27:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] French contribution on Reforma In-Reply-To: <954259bd1001150813p3ef3e7fcu276085899d0a1443@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <443766.76237.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I believe this matter required such a remedial explanation. And you did that quite well. I do not want to but agree with your point, as it may appear. (I would rather everyone be forced into my belief that we should embrace our incorrect behaviour on a constant basis and that it is not an admission of wrong, at the time.) Afraid modern jurisprudence and politics demand a more firm grasp of reality, that is more in line with your perspective.   The French contribution is frank. It seems that the contributors are not afraid to own their position. This honesty is much needed and appreciated. If we do not stand for something we will fall for anything. --- On Fri, 1/15/10, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: From: Bertrand de La Chapelle Subject: Re: [governance] French contribution on Reforma To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" Cc: "Jeremy Malcolm" Date: Friday, January 15, 2010, 4:13 PM Dear Eric, Thanks for your appreciation of the French contribution. However, as you may have noticed from a previous post from Jeremy on this list, I have issued a note of caution upon the use of the term "reform" in this case. It is useful to make a distinction between "reform of the IGF" and "constant evolution of the IGF working methods in a self-organizing manner". The term "reform" implies a strong approach and seem to suppose a preliminary negative assessment of the object of the reform. As the Merriam-Webster dictionary indicates in its definition : REFORM transitive verb 1 a : to put or change into an improved form or condition b : to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses 2 : to put an end to an evil by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action 3 : to induce or cause to abandon evil ways .  This is even stronger for the noun : 1 : amendment of what is defective, vicious, corrupt, or depraved 2 : a removal or correction of an abuse, a wrong, or errors The latin etymology (re+formare) also evokes a somewhat radical structural reconstruction. On the other hand, the verb "improve" would have a more positive tone per the same source : IMPROVE 1 : to advance or make progress in what is desirable 2 : to make useful additions or amendments Finally, the term employed in the French contribution, "evolution" introduces the notion of process that feels appropriate here : EVOLUTION 2  c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance 3 : the process of working out or developing In view of the above, should the IGF use the expression "Reform of the IGF" as the overarching angle of its contribution, it would naturally be understood as putting the accent on criticism rather than the possible progress; it could further give the surprising impression that civil society actors on this list position themselves on the outside of a precious and fragile process that is more open to them than any in the international arena, that they largely initiated and very positively contributed to shape so far. As mentioned in a previous mail, discussions within and statements from the Internet Governance Caucus do carry weight in the broader community : this brings additional responsibility to the IGC in defining precisely the content and tone of its messages, in order to make sure that they are not misused or misinterpreted. This does not prevent suggestions for significant improvements, on the contrary, as I hope our contribution illustrates. I hope these elements help and respond to your interrogations. Thank you in any case for having raised the point, which led me to examine the above definitions that (fortunately) confirmed my initial gut feeling in the preparation of this contribution. Best Bertrand On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: So someone please explain to me this fear of telling the world that good governance is in need of and should constantly be in a state of REFORM.  Doi Moi, Mao's revolution, the New Deal, European Commonwealth, Reforma de Lay.  At least Monarchs are naturally(or prenaturally) reformed on an ongoing basis. Each election cycle is a reform. And then I read these good and true opening words from the French contribution: ""As mentioned during the consultations on the continuation of the IGF held in Sharm el Sheikh, a major value of the flexible format of the IGF is its capacity to constantly evolve its working methods in a self-organizing manner.""   Why not just be honest???   --- On Thu, 1/14/10, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: From: Bertrand de La Chapelle Subject: [governance] French contribution for the IGF February consultations To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 9:38 PM Dear all, For information, you will find attached the contribution I just sent to the IGF Secretariat in the perspective of the February consultation. It explores possible further improvements of the IGF working methods. I hope you'll find it interesting/useful. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -----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 -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Jan 15 15:03:30 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:33:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments? In-Reply-To: <4B50B27F.70102@gih.com> References: <176CE6EA-7FE8-4205-BD4A-D11D6A06582C@ciroap.org> <4B50B27F.70102@gih.com> Message-ID: Hello Oliver, On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > Jeremy, > > Le 15/01/2010 17:46, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > > *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of > the IGF* > > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, > which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil > society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation. We > look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in > the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > *About the IGC* > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are > actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead > up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is > to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy > making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing > list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can > be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. > > > > Thank you for writing this statement but I am really sorry - I *strongly* > object to the statement as it is currently phrased. > > Okay - I'm not sure whether I am "allowed" to be saying this, but whilst I > think that your writing style and ability is impeccable, and whilst I agree > with some of the points developed, I also need to point out that the > statements which make up this submission are seriously misleading about the > amount of support this statement has behind it. > > I agree with you on this observation. > In a previous message, you said: > "There were 36 responses to the survey; 26 full, and 10 partial (since no > questions were compulsory). This amounts to about a quarter of our > membership, which isn't bad at all in my opinion. " > > Am I correct to assume that the IGC statement is based on these responses? > > In the IGC statement, you now mention "400 individuals" in mailing lists - > so as far as I understand, you're got responses from less than 10% of the > coalition's individuals. > Your calculations are correct. > You therefore *cannot* have sentences in the release saying: > "We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which > reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil > society" or comments such as: "it is widely accepted" or "Many also believe" > because the opinions you are describing, are from an absolute minority of > IGC members. Either that, or you should not use the figure of "400 > individuals" in the statement and should mention somewhere that only 36 > responses were received. > I partially disagree with you on your exacting standards for using expressions such as "rough consensus" or "many also believe". With a list of 400 members as volunteers, the maximum number of active participants is not likely to be in excess of a hundred. This is broadly true of any voluntary organization with volunteers as members. 36 responses out of an overall strength of 400 is a fair indication of a rough consensus. If we expect a 50% + vote for every decision, or a quorum for even the most important discussions, it is going be very difficult to handle IGC tasks. So we need some tolerance towards coordinators / working group heads who will find it impossible to proceed with any decision if we are to insist on a quorum or a 50% approval. > > I'm sorry Jeremy, for having to write such an email. I am > not criticizing you in person: I think you did a great job of trying to pull > some text together in such a short length of time, but I am concerned about > the IGC's actual *legitimacy* in the face of such a statement. The fault for > a "failure to have a consensus document written in time" falls onto our > collective shoulders - and I will stand out there and say "yes I have failed > to take the time to help this year, I am sorry, and I'll try to do better > next time", and I hope that others will too. > No, it is not going to happen next year, not with the present standards of participation. It might happen if the IGC caucus insists on an electronic equivalent of the attendance standards of Rotary Clubs. Are we as members willing to be governed by rules of minimum participation such as agree to vote on at least two third of the issues posed or contribute to the discussions in half the number of topics, or lose membership? In such a strict environment it may be possible to achieve the participation required to claim "legitimacy" in the face of statements. > But in times of doubt, wisdom directs that strong statements are not made > for the sake of making strong statements. If you are in doubt about what the > IGC really wishes to say, then, please do not include ambiguities that make > consensus appear where it is not, or crowds appear where there's just a > handful of people. > > A "strong" statement can just end up being a "wrong" statement, and that's > not good for anybody. > While agree that care must be taken before making 'strong' statements, I feel that it is OK to talk of rough consensus based on rough assessments that come from experience. Unless there are indicatively strong, adverse responses from a few participants,from which the adverse mood of the participants is assessed, it should be OK for the coordinators to assume a "rough consensus". I think this is what is practically possible. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. > > Warmest regards, > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 15 15:08:20 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:08:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments? In-Reply-To: <4B50B006.4090203@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <606464.32770.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> (it is my belief and hope that the majority of the fine people working in this field are well intentioned. That demands are unnecessary. That in most cases, reminding or bringing to attention important issues will result in good conscious efforts to do right.)   Final thought on final paragraph.       We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation. Most importantly we believe that the areas of concern addressed herein are worthy of constant review, debate and contribution and should not be ignored or overlooked in this area of great importance.  We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. Believe can be changed to: support the idea Debate and contibution can be taken out "Should not" can be changed to the affirmative / should be paid attention to --- On Fri, 1/15/10, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: From: Jeanette Hofmann Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" Date: Friday, January 15, 2010, 6:12 PM Hi Jeremy, thanks for posting an updated version. You did not include Ian's comments did you? I have more issues with the text, I just havn't posted them yet since I thought we would proceed para by para. jeanette Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF* > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.  However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006.  None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular stakeholder groups as it is at present.  Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations publicly. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating to the IGF's structure and processes.  Many of the IGC's members believe that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions about the future structure and processes of the IGF. > > A second aspect in which there is room for further improvement in the accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings.  Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that for instance the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. > > The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would support outputs of such kinds).  Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. > > Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting.  Many of our members believe that this should include the development of an ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. > > Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working groups).  In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation.  We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > *About the IGC* > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter.  More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org . > > -- > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_ > > Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 15 15:15:43 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:15:43 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments? In-Reply-To: References: <176CE6EA-7FE8-4205-BD4A-D11D6A06582C@ciroap.org> <4B50B27F.70102@gih.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Oliver, > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > wrote: >> >> Jeremy, >> >> Le 15/01/2010 17:46, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : >> >> Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of >> the IGF >> >> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which >> reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil >> society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation.  We >> look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in >> the IGF over the course of its renewed term. >> About the IGC >> The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are actively >> engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the >> World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote >> global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It >> now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who >> have subscribed to its Charter.  More about our coalition can be found at >> http://www.igcaucus.org. >> >> Thank you for writing this statement but I am really sorry - I *strongly* >> object to the statement as it is currently phrased. >> >> Okay - I'm not sure whether I am "allowed" to be saying this, but whilst I >> think that your writing style and ability is impeccable, and whilst I agree >> with some of the points developed, I also need to point out that the >> statements which make up this submission are seriously misleading about the >> amount of support this statement has behind it. >> > > I agree with you on this observation. As do I. In addition, our charter says: "The IGC will use its mailing list - governance at lists.cpsr.org, as the priority working space. Work shall also be done with the website : www.igcaucus.org" I do recall the questions were posted to the list. I don't recall anyone saying "what a good idea, go ahead with that". Perhaps I missed some mails over the holidays. There does seem to be consensus to go para by para. I think that our submission will not be ignored even if late. -- 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 Jan 15 15:19:16 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:19:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments? In-Reply-To: References: <176CE6EA-7FE8-4205-BD4A-D11D6A06582C@ciroap.org> <4B50B27F.70102@gih.com> , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4D7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I agree with re-starting para by para, beginning with Ian's comments. ________________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 3:15 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments? On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Oliver, > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > wrote: >> >> Jeremy, >> >> Le 15/01/2010 17:46, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : >> >> Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of >> the IGF >> >> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which >> reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil >> society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation. We >> look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in >> the IGF over the course of its renewed term. >> About the IGC >> The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are actively >> engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the >> World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote >> global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It >> now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who >> have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at >> http://www.igcaucus.org. >> >> Thank you for writing this statement but I am really sorry - I *strongly* >> object to the statement as it is currently phrased. >> >> Okay - I'm not sure whether I am "allowed" to be saying this, but whilst I >> think that your writing style and ability is impeccable, and whilst I agree >> with some of the points developed, I also need to point out that the >> statements which make up this submission are seriously misleading about the >> amount of support this statement has behind it. >> > > I agree with you on this observation. As do I. In addition, our charter says: "The IGC will use its mailing list - governance at lists.cpsr.org, as the priority working space. Work shall also be done with the website : www.igcaucus.org" I do recall the questions were posted to the list. I don't recall anyone saying "what a good idea, go ahead with that". Perhaps I missed some mails over the holidays. There does seem to be consensus to go para by para. I think that our submission will not be ignored even if late. -- 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 gpaque at gmail.com Fri Jan 15 15:23:38 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:53:38 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments? In-Reply-To: References: <176CE6EA-7FE8-4205-BD4A-D11D6A06582C@ciroap.org> <4B50B27F.70102@gih.com> Message-ID: <4B50CECA.2060700@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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 15 15:34:15 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:34:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <73691.33741.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Where did you find such a notion? ""required to claim "legitimacy" in the face of statements.""   I am always looking for new standards to be applied to "what is legitimate". This is true especially when it is used to suggest what is illigitimate.   In 1,000 years of western jurisprudence we have held true to the notion of silent admissions and adoption by failure to object. This is a logical default position.  If you have an interest and do not object when you are reasonably able to do so --- well then you are either forbidden from later objection or determined to accept. (a sword or a shield)   People must be held accountable for joining and then not participating.  They lend their support by joining. If they do not object it must rationally be assumed they support. People who want it both ways are in effect stealing their claim to participation. If we have ten who support, none who object and you who say it is illigitmate then where does your claim come from?  Change the numbers ever so much and it does not change the lack of support for your argument.   Failure to object must be considered support in a civil society.  If it is not then everyone must contribute at every second. That is logical nonsense. If you have a cogent argument in opposition to this I would hope you would say it. If not, put your membership here on a resume', wait until after discussion and then complain and then claim that the group you belong to is illigitimate???? --- On Fri, 1/15/10, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" Cc: "Jeremy Malcolm" Date: Friday, January 15, 2010, 8:03 PM Hello Oliver, On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: Jeremy, Le 15/01/2010 17:46, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation.  We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. About the IGC The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter.  More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. Thank you for writing this statement but I am really sorry - I *strongly* object to the statement as it is currently phrased. Okay - I'm not sure whether I am "allowed" to be saying this, but whilst I think that your writing style and ability is impeccable, and whilst I agree with some of the points developed, I also need to point out that the statements which make up this submission are seriously misleading about the amount of support this statement has behind it. I agree with you on this observation.   In a previous message, you said: "There were 36 responses to the survey; 26 full, and 10 partial (since no questions were compulsory).  This amounts to about a quarter of our membership, which isn't bad at all in my opinion. " Am I correct to assume that the IGC statement is based on these responses? In the IGC statement, you now mention "400 individuals" in mailing lists - so as far as I understand, you're got responses from less than 10% of the coalition's individuals. Your calculations are correct.   You therefore *cannot* have sentences in the release saying: "We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society" or comments such as: "it is widely accepted" or "Many also believe" because the opinions you are describing, are from an absolute minority of IGC members. Either that, or you should not use the figure of "400 individuals" in the statement and should mention somewhere that only 36 responses were received. I partially disagree with you on your exacting standards for using expressions such as "rough consensus" or "many also believe".   With a list of 400 members as volunteers, the maximum number of active participants is not likely to be in excess of a hundred. This is broadly true of any voluntary organization with volunteers as members. 36 responses out of an overall strength of 400 is a fair indication of a rough consensus. If we expect a 50% + vote for every decision, or a quorum for even the most important discussions, it is going be very difficult to handle IGC tasks. So we need some tolerance towards coordinators / working group heads who will find it impossible to proceed with any decision if we are to insist on a quorum or a 50% approval.    I'm sorry Jeremy, for having to write such an email. I am not criticizing you in person: I think you did a great job of trying to pull some text together in such a short length of time, but I am concerned about the IGC's actual *legitimacy* in the face of such a statement. The fault for a "failure to have a consensus document written in time" falls onto our collective shoulders - and I will stand out there and say "yes I have failed to take the time to help this year, I am sorry, and I'll try to do better next time", and I hope that others will too. No, it is not going to happen next year, not with the present standards of participation. It might happen if the IGC caucus insists on an electronic equivalent of the attendance standards of Rotary Clubs. Are we as members willing to be governed by rules of minimum participation such as agree to vote on at least two third of the issues posed or contribute to the discussions in half the number of topics, or lose membership? In such a strict environment it may be possible to achieve the participation required to claim "legitimacy" in the face of statements.   But in times of doubt, wisdom directs that strong statements are not made for the sake of making strong statements. If you are in doubt about what the IGC really wishes to say, then, please do not include ambiguities that make consensus appear where it is not, or crowds appear where there's just a handful of people.   A "strong" statement can just end up being a "wrong" statement, and that's not good for anybody. While agree that care must be taken before making 'strong' statements, I feel that it is OK to talk of rough consensus based on rough assessments that come from experience. Unless there are indicatively strong, adverse responses from a few participants,from which the adverse mood of the participants is assessed, it should be OK for the coordinators to assume a "rough consensus". I think this is what is practically possible.  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy.   Warmest regards, -- 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 -----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 isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Jan 15 15:42:45 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 02:12:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments? In-Reply-To: <176CE6EA-7FE8-4205-BD4A-D11D6A06582C@ciroap.org> References: <176CE6EA-7FE8-4205-BD4A-D11D6A06582C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hello All, On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of > the IGF* > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of > the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related > public policy issues. > > However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a > further term, > Should we express uncertainty in our communication about the extension of the forum? "However, if, as we hope, the mandate is to be extended..." > there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into > account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its > inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter > the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe > > it should remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an > independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations > Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). > I have different thoughts on this. The IGF came into being as a forum under the UN umbrella and remained so for the first 5 years. IGF's further evolution should be as an independent forum, independent even of the United Nations. The IGF somehow sustained itself though its multi-stakeholder discussion setting free of rules and procedures is completely opposite to UN way of working. So, UN may have to consider freeing the IGF as an independent forum but with total and full endorsement and of the UN, its member states as with the endorsement of other stakeholders. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition > of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder > groups, rather than being slanted towards particular stakeholder groups as > it is at present. > Are we in a position to provide facts and figures to substantiate the statement that the MAG is "slanted towards particular stakeholder groups as at present" ? > Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in > the selection of MAG members, > I believe that the MAG should have a dominant role in the selection of new members rather than allow this process happen beyond the purview of the MAG. > and that MAG discussions should be more transparent > MAG meetings are open and transcripts are published almost on the same day. Why are we discontent? Because the mailing list is a closed list? - for example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing > list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations > publicly. > We could ask for the mailing list to be opened up, but an open mailing list wouldn't effectively co-exist with a closed mailing list. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of > stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating to the > IGF's structure and processes. Many of the IGC's members believe that the > MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, ought to > exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions about the > future structure and processes of the IGF. > > A second aspect in which there is room for further improvement in the > accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive > agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this responsibility falls to > the MAG, the IGC was surprised that for instance the very strongly and > widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the > importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the > agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. > Here a specific issue is addressed which does not fit into the overall input which is on broader topics. Why are we talking specifically about how the human rights agenda was placed at Sharm el Sheikh? > > The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation towards > the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to > recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members > would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, > efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant > external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through publications on > the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. > Some processes are already in place. What needs to be done is to fine tune these processes. > > Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to maximise > its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program, > rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. Many of our members > believe that this should include the development of an ongoing work program > for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and > intersessional and regional meetings. > At the moment we could focus on emphasizing the continuation of the IGF and after this hurdle is passed, we can look deeper into its structure and pay attention to the tasks of re-designing the IGF if needed. > > Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can be > left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working > groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better > mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the > IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent > standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, > and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which > reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil > society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation. We > look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in > the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > *About the IGC* > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are actively > engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the > World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote > global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It > now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who > have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at > http://www.igcaucus.org. > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer > rights around the world. > *http://www.consumersinternational.org/50* > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Jan 15 15:54:25 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 21:54:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments? In-Reply-To: References: <176CE6EA-7FE8-4205-BD4A-D11D6A06582C@ciroap.org> <4B50B27F.70102@gih.com> Message-ID: <36B9A9C3-25A8-432A-9A75-356B5E034E43@psg.com> On 15 Jan 2010, at 21:15, McTim wrote: > I think that our > submission will not be ignored even if late. Generally all statements that are received are posted. Those that come in too late to be included in any synthesis documents are not included in those synthesis documents, but they are generally posted nonetheless. a. (back on contract to UN-IGF 17 Jan thru 25 Feb)____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 15 16:22:10 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:52:10 -0430 Subject: [governance] Diplo opens Call for Applications for Capacity Development online programmes in Internet Governance and ICT Policy Message-ID: <4B50DC82.5060600@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGCBP10 Call for Applications.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 53613 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ACP4IG Call for Applications.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 99931 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Jan 15 16:24:57 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:24:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <461940.65984.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <461940.65984.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Eric. > Your concerns are right and your plea is universal. All should strive for > better understanding that transcends language. > I am happy that we agree :-) But I must caution you on two matters of rationale. > 1. It is illconceived to equate langurage learning as a disability. > I think you misunderstood my intention. The example I was using was deliberately NOT referring to language learning skills, but to the situation of the person "disabled" by lacking ability in the language being used by the majority. I would be similarly disabled if trying to be part of a conversation where your deaf friend and his friends were using sign language. Some are more talented and more skilled at multilingualism and others are > not so gifted. But the normal is one language well. You do my deaf friend an > injustice to equate my ignorance of Navajo to his inability to hear as you > and I do. Those of us who struggle to understand a foreign additional tongue > are not to be afforded the same dispensation as a person with a challenge of > disability. > With the greatest respect - why not if the overall objective is communication and some may be "disabled" by lack of a language? 2. Anger at Anglophonia is misplaced. > I'm not sure where this comes from. I have re-read what I wrote and I cannot see how you could interpret it as anger. Like you I see what you call "Anglophonia" as simply a state of affairs. However if we can find means to prevent the "state of affairs" from disabling some people then I believe we have a responsibility to try to do this. No one designed that. No one conspired that. You must treat it as a "just > is" ASEAN is a wonderful organization (Association of Southeast Asian > Nations) and it "just is" that their most common language is English and so > it is most used. > > But we speak of contributions to this list. All must be ready to help to > understand. Those who generally do not speak up -- have a very wonderful > gift of an opportunity to help translate. They can dive right in and > contribute in their own lingua. Sometimes we must elevate our ability to > work here from a right to a responsibility. In every endeavor there are > places for contribution and places of demand to receive. We have found over > the years that the best of breed for multilingualism comes not from demand > to get but from willingness to contribute. I will fight and die for your > right to be included and have your rights, but I cannot and will not do the > same for your right not to contribute and not to learn new ways. > > (in my southwest American home it is not unusual for my wife and that side > of the family to try to leave me out by speaking French and Vietnamese - My > side we use Spanish some Native American and a Shockabro Jive. And the best > part is that we all are learning new tongues at all times but more > importantly new ways to look at things and new ways to incorporate and > include cultures and traditions) > > Multilingualism must be a positive lifting up or it is a division. > I agree, but this involves negotiation on all sides of any multi-lingual situation. > > --- On *Fri, 1/15/10, Deirdre Williams *wrote: > > > -- “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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Jan 15 16:30:26 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:30:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments? In-Reply-To: <36B9A9C3-25A8-432A-9A75-356B5E034E43@psg.com> References: <176CE6EA-7FE8-4205-BD4A-D11D6A06582C@ciroap.org> <4B50B27F.70102@gih.com> <36B9A9C3-25A8-432A-9A75-356B5E034E43@psg.com> Message-ID: I agree with all of those who suggest taking more time to polish the submission, even if that means submitting it after the deadline. Deirdre 2010/1/15 Avri Doria : > > On 15 Jan 2010, at 21:15, McTim wrote: > >>  I think that our >> submission will not be ignored even if late. > > > Generally all statements that are received are posted.  Those that come in too late to be included in any synthesis documents are not included in those synthesis documents, but they are generally posted nonetheless. > > a. > > (back on contract to UN-IGF  17 Jan  thru 25 Feb)____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 charityg at diplomacy.edu Fri Jan 15 22:25:52 2010 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 21:25:52 -0600 Subject: [governance] Text of IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF In-Reply-To: <4ca4162f1001150737u126c2663t69c82c9b23285454@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B4F00F9.30500@gmail.com> <4ca4162f1001140652l5fc81e9cg959fb1d11cc5029e@mail.gmail.com> <4B507DE2.7090603@gmail.com> <4ca4162f1001150737u126c2663t69c82c9b23285454@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear all, I agree that there is so much different discussion and debates in the IGC recently that I myself am a bit overwhelmed in following. But I have been reading (multitasking), although slowly, and trying to figure out which discussion I should specifically follow so I can contribute effectively. But I do support the IRP statement. Thank you. Regards, Charity G. E. On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Roxana Goldstein < goldstein.roxana at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Ginger. > It´s a pitty that this statement will not be support by IGC. > > I think that the problem is that there are too much lines of debate open at > the same time, all around the same or similar topics -the IGF reforma, > taking stocks, etc- and it creates some confusion. > > I suggest that the IGC could evaluate the possibility to open another kind > of collaborative virtual space, like ning for example. > > Thanks again, and best regards, > Roxana > > > > 2010/1/15 Ginger Paque > > Here is the final version of the IRP Statement to the IGF. (below) >> >> Since there has been almost no response to this Call for Consensus, the >> IGC will not be able to endorse the written statement to be submitted today >> by the IRP. However, it is still important to review this document, as we >> can support it orally in the Open Consultations in Geneva in February. >> >> I repeat the suggestions made on the list that the IGC support appropriate >> statements by other groups. This one seems particularly appropriate for >> support by the IGC. However, without more vocal support on this list, we >> cannot endorse it. >> >> Best, Ginger >> >> >> ****************** >> Open Consultation IGF 2010 >> >> INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement >> >> The comments below from the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic >> Coalition are our contribution to the Open Consultations for IGF 2010. Each >> of the four themes below take stock of IGF 2009 by offering practical >> suggestions for the format and planning of IGF 2010. >> >> 1) Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary >> sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the internet >> age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in general rather than >> specific terms. >> a. The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding >> human rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different stakeholders >> can or should play in this regard, and how these play out more specifically >> in different Internet governance issue-areas. >> b. With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but also >> main sessions that look more closely at what a 'human rights agenda', or >> 'development agenda for Internet Governance' might actually look like. >> Whilst openness and diversity continue to be important issues, we think this >> year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy dilemmas >> within these broader themes >> c. The coalition is ready and willing to contribute to organizing and >> facilitating main sessions along these Human Rights related themes. >> >> 2) General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found the >> meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued progress in all >> aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or who organised >> workshops would like to commend the organisers for their good work in this >> regard, particularly given the relatively limited budget and resources >> available to the IGF. Aspects that could be paid more attention this year >> include: >> a. Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become >> diverted into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. >> This is a key issue however we think it is important to avoid having these >> issues sidetrack the topics on hand in main sessions and workshops this >> year. >> b. Continuity and more linking between the main sessions and the >> workshops could be strengthened. Clear links in the program by >> cross-referencing of session/workshop themes and titles is one way to create >> these links before the meeting. During and after the meeting, we would like >> to see formal feedback opportunities put in place and integrated into the >> stocktaking; from organizers and/or moderators of both main sessions and >> workshops. >> c. Main sessions based around 'classic' themes of openness, diversity, >> and such like need to be supplemented and reinvigorated by including new >> themes onto the program. The need for continuity and in-depth discussions of >> ongoing themes need to be balanced by new themes as well for this is a >> fast-moving area. >> d. Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists. This >> always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. We realise that >> larger panels allow for a greater diversity in some cases. However we would >> urge moderators of larger sessions to ensure that there is enough time for >> discussion and that when discussion takes place it is dynamic and inclusive >> of panellists and other participants. It is important that contributors from >> the floor as well as from remote participants get enough time to have their >> say and be adequately responded to by panellists and other participants. >> e. In light of the above we would also like to see more innovative >> panel formats encouraged; modelled on town-hall meetings, brainstorming, and >> other sorts of small-group, or interactive forms of discussion for instance. >> Formal panels have their place but good work is also done in small >> groups/break-out sessions as well. >> f. Rather than having main sessions largely based around broad themes, >> we think this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy >> dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to opening up the >> discussion about specific solutions before the actual session. >> >> 3) Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote >> participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific issues >> that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller and more >> diverse participation in the IGF. >> a. Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time or >> enough information on how to use the technology provided properly. When >> technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on hand so >> many moderators found themselves in the role of do-it-yourself technical >> supporters. This causes delays, frustration and a loss of focus for >> everyone. More information in advance from the IGF in liaison with the >> Vilnius venue organisers would be useful. But also during the event, and >> given the importance of enabling remote participation but also having it run >> smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in this respect is >> indispensable. >> b. We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote >> Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a moderator >> on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning. Some-one needs to >> monitor remote participation, in partnership with the workshop moderator, in >> order to streamline, filter and facilitate remote participation in the >> proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based comments, setting up a queue for >> spoken interventions, or having remote participants be given the floor en >> bloc if this is more practicable. We would also urge all moderators to >> understand the many remote participants are doing this at difficult times of >> their 24 hour day and that time-lags require careful attention be paid to >> timing responses and requests by moderators on the ground. >> c. The above points underscore our support for proposals to organise >> adequate guidelines as well as a brief training session/module/virtual tour >> for all moderators before the IGF meeting. During the meeting is not the >> time to experiment. >> >> 4) Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural, regional, >> and linguistic representation remains a core issue for a number of dynamic >> coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about continuing to improve remote >> participation technically and organizationally relate to these concerns. >> Practically there is a need to >> a. Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between >> discussions and themes from national, regional and international IGFs >> better, during the meetings as well as in the record of these various >> meetings. At present the public record is piecemeal and not easily >> accessible. We recognise that this is process that needs dedicated time and >> resources to do so and urge the IGF to put aside some resources for this. >> b. Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By this >> we mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and specialised >> workshops need to be more accessible to 'everyday internet users', any >> interested communities or groups from areas where the Internet is either >> less extensive or who have other communication priorities. >> >> >> Roxana Goldstein wrote: >> >> Hi Ginger and all, >> >> In my humild opinion, I think that it is ok to support this statement. >> >> Anyway, I think that points 3 and 4 must be core issues for the IGC, and I >> suggest to continue debating here about them, and how to improve the IGFs >> -global, regional, national, preparatory meetings, etc.- in this regard. >> >> Best, >> Roxana >> >> >> >> 2010/1/14 Ginger Paque >> >>> Hello all: this is the current draft of the IRP contribution, which is up >>> for Consensus for IGC support. There will be a "tightened" draft later, >>> probably this afternoon, but this appears to be the essence of the >>> statement. >>> >>> Please read it carefully, and advise whether the IGC should sign on in >>> support of this statement. This is independent of any IGC statement. >>> >>> We need to do this quickly if we want to ask the IRP to add our signature >>> to their written contribution. Please post. >>> >>> >>> Open Consultation IGF 2010 >>> >>> INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement >>> >>> The IRP Dynamic Coalition would like to contribute to the Open >>> Consultation for IGF 2010 in two areas: observations for taking stock of IGF >>> 2009 and suggestions for the format and agenda of the Vilnius meeting. The >>> comments below are organised under [..] themes, under which we take stock of >>> IGF 2009 and then offer practical suggestions for the format and planning of >>> IGF 2010. >>> >>> 1) General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found >>> the meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued progress in all >>> aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or who organised >>> workshops would like to commend the organisers for their good work in this >>> regard, particularly given the relatively limited budget and resources >>> available to the IGF. Some specific concerns include: >>> a. Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become >>> diverted into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. >>> We think it is time to move on and to keep these issues from overwhelming >>> the topics in hand. >>> b. Continuity and more explicit links between the main sessions and >>> the workshops could have been stronger. Clear links in the program by >>> cross-referencing of session/workshop themes and titles is one way to create >>> these links before the meeting. During and after the meeting, we would like >>> to see formal feedback opportunities put in place and integrated into the >>> stocktaking; from organizers and/or moderators of both main sessions and >>> workshops. >>> c. Main sessions based around the "traditional" themes of openness, >>> diversity, and such like started to feel a bit repetitive particularly in >>> relation to the freshness of new themes introduced onto the program. The >>> need for continuity and depth needs to be balanced by new themes as well >>> d. Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists. >>> This always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. Moderators of >>> larger sessions need to find ways to ensure that discussion actually takes >>> place and when it does it dynamic and inclusive. To this end we would >>> suggest that there is an upper limit set on the number of panellists and/or >>> length of formal presentations. Moreover that enough time is set aside for >>> discussion. It is important that contributions from the floor, and remote >>> participants get enough time to have their say and be adequately responded >>> to by panellists and other participants. >>> e. Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, we >>> think this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy >>> dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to opening up the >>> discussion about specific solutions before the actual session. >>> >>> 2) Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote >>> participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific issues >>> that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller and more >>> diverse participation in the IGF. >>> a. Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time >>> or enough information on how to use the technology provided properly. When >>> technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on hand so >>> many moderators found themselves doing DIY instead. This is unprofessional >>> and causes delays and loss of focus for everyone. More information in >>> advance from IGF HQ would be useful. But also during the event, and given >>> the importance of enabling remote participation but also having it run >>> smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in this respect is >>> indispensable. >>> b. We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote >>> Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a moderator >>> on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning. Some-one needs to >>> monitor remote participation, in partnership with the workshop moderator, in >>> order to streamline, filter and facilitate remote participation in the >>> proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based comments, setting up a queue for >>> spoken interventions, or having remote participants be given the floor en >>> bloc if this is more practicable. We would also urge all moderators to >>> understand the many remote participants are doing this at difficult times of >>> their 24 hour day and that time-lags require careful attention be paid to >>> timing responses and requests by moderators on the ground. >>> c. The above points underscore our support for proposals to organise >>> adequate guidelines as well as a brief training session/module/virtual tour >>> for all moderators before the IGF meeting. During the meeting is not the >>> time to experiment. >>> >>> 3) Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary >>> sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the internet >>> age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in general rather than >>> specific terms. >>> a. The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding >>> human rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different stakeholders >>> can or should play in this regard, and how these play out more specifically >>> in different Internet governance issue-areas. >>> b. With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but >>> also main sessions that look more closely at what a "human rights agenda" or >>> "development agenda: for Internet Governance might actually look like. >>> Discussions around broad themes such as openness and diversity have already >>> taken place. It is time to get down to specifics and we do not see why these >>> specifics always have to be covered in workshop sessions. >>> >>> 4) Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural, >>> regional, and linguistic representation remains a core issue for a number of >>> dynamic coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about continuing to improve >>> remote participation technically and organizationally relate to these >>> concerns. Practically there is a need to >>> a. Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between >>> discussions and themes from national, regional and international IGFs >>> better, during the meetings as well as in the record of these various >>> meetings. At present the public record is piecemeal and not easily >>> accessible. We recognise that this is process that needs dedicated time and >>> resources to do so and urge the IGF to put aside some resources for this. >>> b. Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By >>> this we mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and specialised >>> workshops need to be more accessible not only to 'everyday internet users' >>> but also for any communities or groups from areas where the Internet is >>> either less extensive or who have other communication priorities. >>> >>> ********************************************************************88 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dr Marianne Franklin >>> Reader >>> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program >>> Media & Communications >>> Goldsmiths, University of London >>> New Cross >>> London SE14 6NW >>> United Kingdom >>> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072 >>> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616 >>> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk >>> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php >>> >>> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Student Alternatives Program, Inc - South Plains Academy 4008 Avenue R Lubbock, Texas 79412 Phone: +1 (806) 744 0330 Fax: +1 (806) 741 1089 http://www.stdsapi.com/ 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jan 16 02:29:00 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:59:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B516ABC.1080708@itforchange.net> Jeanette My first task will be to emphatically restate my position on openness and participative-ness, because confusion about it will, I think, continue to bedevil my attempts to make an entirely different point. If I am to mention one thing I do professionally today, I would say it is to work for more open and participative governance systems. We work from grassroots levels to policy levels towards this objective, often in very radical manners. We have always sought that MAG works in working groups co-opting interested people and groups to both develop the main sessions, and also background material/ papers etc for main themes. We have also sought that most, if not all, of MAG discussion takes place on an open list, which proposal incidentally did not find support from many of those who now support 'do-we-even-need-a-MAG' experiment, which is a bit strange. So while we seek more openness, we do look with considerable suspicion at 'openness' which may, or even be designed in order to, make the substantial evaporate. Obviously, we cannot afford to lose sight of the intrinsic purpose of a system/ organization in promoting an instrumental purpose. Anarchy, for instance, cannot be the outcome of increasing participation in governance systems. I hope this convinces you that I am not arguing against more open and participative MAG meetings. We should discuss more about how to make the MAG system more open and participative. Lets start a thread on it. Meanwhile allow me to discuss an entirely different issue - the radical 'do-we-even-need-a-MAG' experiment. While I myself saw this proposal as possibly clearing the way for the new structural possibility of no MAG or a greatly weakened MAG, you yourself confirmed that, in your words "This year's meetings following the February meeting could be regarded as an experiment to find out if a MAG is needed at all." You would agree that this is a rather drastic experiment. Who chose to try this experiment (and why) rather than, and I repeat, other experiments more in keeping with IGC's earlier position to seek outcomes from MAG/ IGF system like background material/ papers on key themes for the IGF, greater specificity of key policy issues to be taken up, inter-sessional thematic work etc. (if you want I can flesh out how such experiments can be tried.) To propose this experiment over others, I beg to state, is an ideological position on one end of a large spectrum of views on what IGF should do. And, putting into effect this experiment would serve to preempt movement towards these greater possibilities, which in the view of many people are needed to be explored in order to meet the full mandate of the IGF. >If I understand you correctly, Parminder, you imply that only a formally constituted group with a exlusive >membership could take over broader responsibilities? If so, I havn't thought about this enough to agree or >disagree with you on this. Yes, I think only a formally constituted group, but with strong processes of openness and participation, can take up these broader responsibilities. As for doing our thinking on this, I must say that we need to do it now, and before we suggest structural experiments of the kind do-we-need-a-MAG. Obviously, thinking about what we expect a system to achieve, and how, should come before we meddle with its structure. This is the reason that I proposed that a particular kind of structural meddling/ change/ experiment presupposes a certain view of IGF's purpose and possibilities, whether we hold it consciously or not. And this view of IGF's purpose in my opinion is very one-sided. Do you really think that an open house (if the do-we-need-MAG experiment succeeds, on whatever basis success is construed, that is all we will be left with) can really do the following tasks - * Do intensive discussion/ negotiation to come up with specific policy questions for IGF's consideration (As IRP DC statement seeks and IGC has also sought in the past) * Do elaborate linking and structuring of main sessions and workshops to get the best synergies out (again roughly from IRP DC statement, but also from IGC's earlier statements) * Discuss/ negotiate specific sub themes and discussion areas, for themes like CIR and openness which are politically volatile in order to have meaningful progress in these vital areas * Select panelists * Interact with other policy institutions (as per WSIS mandate) * Come up with background material on some themes, syntheisize some kind of outcomes of some IGF processes etc - things which IGC have called for earlier , and also needed to fulfill WSIS mandate of giving advice/ recommendations * There are many other things to possibly do for a group with clear membership and not an 'open house', like suggested by Charity vis a vis remote participation, but I will stop here. Do we realize that if a broadly representative mutlistakeholder group like the MAG did not do all this, who will really end up doing it and taking the decisions. Would that eventuality enhance openness and participation, or greatly curtail it? Can we suggest -do-we-need-MAG kind of experiments, nay actually take them up, without consideration to these basic issues? parminder Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > > Parminder wrote: >> Hi Jeanette, >> >> The proposal continues to bother me a lot in its possible wider >> ramifications. So excuse me to seek some clarifications, and engage >> in a bit of debate on the issue. > > I have no problem with that, on the contrary. > >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> we discussed some of the implications you mention below. >>> >>> This year's meetings following the February meeting could be >>> regarded as an experiment to find out if a MAG is needed at all. >> But why this experiment and not many others that could be attempted. >> Like MAG taking a more pro-active role of doing more inter-sessional >> work, preparing background papers etc - stuff which has been a part >> of many a proposals for IGF evolution, including from the IGC. I >> think this thing being done in the name of an experiment can be very >> pre-emptive. >> >>> Perhaps open planning meetings such as the one we had in September >>> 2009 are sufficient for setting the agenda; perhaps the need for >>> some sort of steering committee does arise, perhaps not. > >> The view that the MAG does and should only do the narrow work of >> setting a very broad agenda > > You are linking two things that seem to me indirectly connected: the > task(s) of the MAG and the selection of its membership. The idea to > open the MAG for its two meetings in May and June seemed a good idea > as it catches 2 birds with one stone. This way, we increase the > transparency of the MAG's work and we avoid the rotation process in > the face of an uncertain future. Everybody can join and help organize > the next meeting. Hence, opening up the meeting shouldn't have an > impact on the MAG's agenda or tasks. > > presupposes that only one part of the WSIS mandate >> for the IGF - acting as a policy discussion space (and that too in a >> largely unstructured way) - is relevant and should ever be attempted. >> This is what I mean by saying that the 'experiment' is pre-emptive. >> Without MAG - in fact ,without a MAG that takes up a larger set of >> goals and activities - these other parts of the IGF mandate can just >> not begun to be addressed. > > After 4 years of MAG I would say that the interpretation of the MAG's > responsibilities depends to some degree on its (rotating) membership. > I can well imagine that the MAG or any other future advisory group > might consider taking over other tasks. If I understand you correctly, > Parminder, you imply that only a formally constituted group with a > exlusive membership could take over broader responsibilities? If so, I > havn't thought about this enough to agree or disagree with you on this. > > >>> >>> Since it is unclear whether after 2010 there will be a new mandate >>> for an IGF and if so, whether the new IGF will continue to have a >>> secretariat and a non-bureau like preparatory structure, this year's >>> preparation seems to be a good opportunity to experiment with >>> processes that are more open and transparent and less burdensome. >> Burdensome! Well that depends on what we look to the IGF to achieve. >> and it is well known that there are very different views on this >> subject. So why a certain view at one end of the spectrum is made to >> look like the obvious and natural one, and processes being described >> as burdensome or not in relation to that view of the IGF's objective. >> >> Any serious difficult work can look burdensome. Helping along global >> policy making can look burdensome, but to others it may be immensely >> necessary, and also mandated by the WSIS. IGC has often sought that >> IGF/MAG does inter-sessional work, form WGs, develop background >> material, make more specific agenda with specific questions of policy >> (IRP dynamic coalition's recent statement too seeks this)... any of >> this may look burdensome, but still be very necessary to evolve >> towards. What happens to all those demands of the IGC and many >> others? Why cant we do some experiment towards this direction rather >> than in the opposite direction to it? > > I remember that we have discussed this issue before. I also remember > that I disagreed with your view on the current state of things. In my > view, the regional IGFs are evolving into a bottom-up process of > inter-sessional meetings. The fact that they are geographically > organized doesn't mean that there is no link between them. What I like > about these regional efforts is that they were not centrally organized > but emerged from local initiatives. I think this is a much better way > of creating a dense network of IGF related processes and structures > than to empower a body such as the MAG to do so. > >>> The annual rotation does involve a lot of work for both the >>> secretariat and all stakeholder groups. > >> Now, I dont see why simply extending the term of the old MAG does not >> solve that problem. > > As I said on the MAG list, I would find it unacceptable if the MAG > simply extended its term without asking those who nominated the > present members in the first place. The little reaction on the MAG > list suggests that not many members share this point of view. I'd > assume that the caucus would have loudly protested if we had just > announced that we wouldn't rotate this year but just serve another > term. Rightly so in my opinion. > > > Why should it entail an experiment to see if MAG is >> at all necessary or not. > > The question is whether or not the MAG needs to be an exclusive club. > You attended the meeting last September. It did work well, didn't it? > > >> So, the 'do we even need a MAG' experiment seems to not have much to >> do with the rotation issue, does it. > > It does also reflect the open meeting in September. It is good to get > those who organize workshops and main session fully and early involved. > > I leave at that. I think others should chip in as well. > > jeanette >> >> Second is the wrapping up of this issue in the very tempting cover of >> more openness. (As an aside I may mention that many who seem to >> support the no-MAG experiment did not support the proposal that >> the discussion list of MAG be public, which is a contradiction if >> the most pressing objective here may just be 'openness'.) Greater >> openness and even participation is a very different issue than >> doing away with a representative body, which may be required to >> accomplish many task that cannot be done by 'open houses'. We all >> know there are many such tasks, some of them stated above as >> expectations expressed by the IGC from the IGF process. >> >> So if we indeed want to explore experiments and people's views and >> where to move forward from here, we can as well be posing questions >> like >> >> "Do you think IGF should accomplish certain objectives, beyond what >> it may be achieving at present? If so. will it require a more >> structured IGF, with an active core representative multistakeholder >> group steering it?" >> And in the spirit of these questions experiment with a few different >> activities and ways of work in the MAG, instead of a >> do-we-need-a-MAG-at-all experiment. >> >> Parminder >>> >>> jeanette >>> >>> Parminder wrote: >>>> Hi All >>>> >>>> I just now posted the following message to the IGF MAG list. More >>>> openness is always welcome but there are also some larger >>>> structural questions about the mandate and efficacy of the IGF >>>> which worry me since the proposal of 'only open meetings' has been >>>> made in connection with the need or not of renewing the MAG. I will >>>> posit these larger questions a little later while I share my >>>> mentioned email. Parminder >>>> >>>> (Disclosure: I am some kind of a member of the MAG system and am >>>> funded for attending its meeting. However, to be fair to me, I was >>>> also funded to attend the planning meeting in Sept which was *not* >>>> a MAG meeting.) >>>> >>>> Dear Markus and others, >>>> >>>> A couple of questions come to my mind regarding the new proposal >>>> which could merit some discussion. >>>> >>>> Does this mean that there will be no MAG post Feb? (I understand >>>> that MAG could exist while there be only open planning meeting as >>>> in Sept last.) >>>> >>>> If so, have we looked at all the implication - tangible and >>>> intangible - of there being no MAG in existence for a whole year in >>>> the run-up to an IGF meeting, and during the meeting? >>>> >>>> Does this in fact suggest that we could anyway more or less do >>>> without a MAG, and a couple of open preparatory/ planning meetings >>>> in Geneva, outcomes of which are culled/interpreted by the >>>> secretariat, is all that is needed to hold the IGF and comply with >>>> the WSIS requirements? >>>> >>>> Does trying out this practice in the year of possible structural >>>> changes to the IGF - possibly taken up along with its renewal if it >>>> comes - can have even more special significance? >>>> >>>> Thanks and best regards >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> the MAG started discussing the issue of rotation for this year. >>>>> Some people were in favor of an extended term for the present >>>>> membership because it is not clear if the IGF's mandate will be >>>>> extended and, should it be extended, under what terms. It could be >>>>> that the MAG meeting in May would be the only one for the new MAG. >>>>> >>>>> I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on this >>>>> matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. This >>>>> afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came up with >>>>> a third solution. Markus just sent the following message to the >>>>> MAG list and asked me to forward it to the caucus list as well. I >>>>> expect the caucus will be happy about the proposed solution? >>>>> >>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>> >>>>> Jeanette has got a point! It might not go down well if any >>>>> decision were taken in this matter without consulting the broader >>>>> community! However, as there is a distinct possibility that a >>>>> renewed MAG will hold one meeting only, there is also a strong >>>>> argument against launching the heavy rotation machinery just for >>>>> the sake of this principle. >>>>> >>>>> I consulted with Jeanette and going through the pros and cons of >>>>> both approaches we both came to the conclusion that there might be >>>>> a third way. We both wondered whether there was any need for a >>>>> closed meeting at all in May. As last September's planning meeting >>>>> went rather well, we wondered whether we could not prepare most of >>>>> this year's meeting in an open process. By doing so, we would also >>>>> take into account the calls for more inclusiveness and >>>>> transparency made during the consultation in Sharm. >>>>> >>>>> The MAG would thus meet a last time next month and set the agenda >>>>> for the Vilnius meeting. The programme could be fleshed out in two >>>>> open planning meetings in May and June. >>>>> >>>>> This could also be an experiment in view of a possible renewal of >>>>> the mandate. Should the mandate be renewed, any decision on how to >>>>> continue could be taken in light of this experiment. >>>>> >>>>> Please let me know what you think about this possible approach. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Markus >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Sat Jan 16 03:06:18 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:36:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B51737A.60605@itforchange.net> Jeanette I am separately taking up here some issues of fact related to our discussion. You know that the September meeting, last year, was held under some special and a bit strange circumstances. It was designated as not a MAG meeting but just a planning meeting. I understand that you realise the implications of this which were vaguely stated in the May MAG meeting - that since it was not a MAG meeting it can only do superficial programmatic stuff and nothing more substantial. It could not amend anything on the program document already written by the MAG, or even add anything substantial. This would hold even if everyone present in the meeting room agreed to something, it simply was not possible to do it. (We were very active on human rights agenda late last year, but the closing/ locking of the program document made it impossible to do any real stuff on it anymore after May, even if there were political mass to do it.) Do you think such openness and increased participation is of much real meaning? Is it not much much better if there is more openness and greater participation while somebody with some substantive authority is also there to take notice of what all the increased participation really contributes. To be more specific, is it not much better if the authority of the representative multistakeholder group MAG is still open and alive at these meetings to be able to make any real substantive change/ additions etc to the program document? (On a more academic note, I have seen fewer real cases of such dramatic contradiction between formal and substantive participation as this!) So questions like >The question is whether or not the MAG needs to be an exclusive club. You attended the meeting last September. >It did work well, didn't it? are not as simple and obvious as they look on the surface. Yes, I want greater non-MAG participation as IGF program is fleshed out (and that in any case happened even in 2008 when Sept meeting was a real MAG meeting) but I do not want a very sketchy IGF agenda and program (so broad as to be largely meaningless) which also is locked up early in the year (as per the present proposal of no MAG meeting post Feb, in Feb itself) with no possibilities of any real substantive input after that. Do you want that? Thats what the present proposal will do. Parminder Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > > Parminder wrote: >> Hi Jeanette, >> >> The proposal continues to bother me a lot in its possible wider >> ramifications. So excuse me to seek some clarifications, and engage >> in a bit of debate on the issue. > > I have no problem with that, on the contrary. > >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> we discussed some of the implications you mention below. >>> >>> This year's meetings following the February meeting could be >>> regarded as an experiment to find out if a MAG is needed at all. >> But why this experiment and not many others that could be attempted. >> Like MAG taking a more pro-active role of doing more inter-sessional >> work, preparing background papers etc - stuff which has been a part >> of many a proposals for IGF evolution, including from the IGC. I >> think this thing being done in the name of an experiment can be very >> pre-emptive. >> >>> Perhaps open planning meetings such as the one we had in September >>> 2009 are sufficient for setting the agenda; perhaps the need for >>> some sort of steering committee does arise, perhaps not. > >> The view that the MAG does and should only do the narrow work of >> setting a very broad agenda > > You are linking two things that seem to me indirectly connected: the > task(s) of the MAG and the selection of its membership. The idea to > open the MAG for its two meetings in May and June seemed a good idea > as it catches 2 birds with one stone. This way, we increase the > transparency of the MAG's work and we avoid the rotation process in > the face of an uncertain future. Everybody can join and help organize > the next meeting. Hence, opening up the meeting shouldn't have an > impact on the MAG's agenda or tasks. > > presupposes that only one part of the WSIS mandate >> for the IGF - acting as a policy discussion space (and that too in a >> largely unstructured way) - is relevant and should ever be attempted. >> This is what I mean by saying that the 'experiment' is pre-emptive. >> Without MAG - in fact ,without a MAG that takes up a larger set of >> goals and activities - these other parts of the IGF mandate can just >> not begun to be addressed. > > After 4 years of MAG I would say that the interpretation of the MAG's > responsibilities depends to some degree on its (rotating) membership. > I can well imagine that the MAG or any other future advisory group > might consider taking over other tasks. If I understand you correctly, > Parminder, you imply that only a formally constituted group with a > exlusive membership could take over broader responsibilities? If so, I > havn't thought about this enough to agree or disagree with you on this. > > >>> >>> Since it is unclear whether after 2010 there will be a new mandate >>> for an IGF and if so, whether the new IGF will continue to have a >>> secretariat and a non-bureau like preparatory structure, this year's >>> preparation seems to be a good opportunity to experiment with >>> processes that are more open and transparent and less burdensome. >> Burdensome! Well that depends on what we look to the IGF to achieve. >> and it is well known that there are very different views on this >> subject. So why a certain view at one end of the spectrum is made to >> look like the obvious and natural one, and processes being described >> as burdensome or not in relation to that view of the IGF's objective. >> >> Any serious difficult work can look burdensome. Helping along global >> policy making can look burdensome, but to others it may be immensely >> necessary, and also mandated by the WSIS. IGC has often sought that >> IGF/MAG does inter-sessional work, form WGs, develop background >> material, make more specific agenda with specific questions of policy >> (IRP dynamic coalition's recent statement too seeks this)... any of >> this may look burdensome, but still be very necessary to evolve >> towards. What happens to all those demands of the IGC and many >> others? Why cant we do some experiment towards this direction rather >> than in the opposite direction to it? > > I remember that we have discussed this issue before. I also remember > that I disagreed with your view on the current state of things. In my > view, the regional IGFs are evolving into a bottom-up process of > inter-sessional meetings. The fact that they are geographically > organized doesn't mean that there is no link between them. What I like > about these regional efforts is that they were not centrally organized > but emerged from local initiatives. I think this is a much better way > of creating a dense network of IGF related processes and structures > than to empower a body such as the MAG to do so. > >>> The annual rotation does involve a lot of work for both the >>> secretariat and all stakeholder groups. > >> Now, I dont see why simply extending the term of the old MAG does not >> solve that problem. > > As I said on the MAG list, I would find it unacceptable if the MAG > simply extended its term without asking those who nominated the > present members in the first place. The little reaction on the MAG > list suggests that not many members share this point of view. I'd > assume that the caucus would have loudly protested if we had just > announced that we wouldn't rotate this year but just serve another > term. Rightly so in my opinion. > > > Why should it entail an experiment to see if MAG is >> at all necessary or not. > > The question is whether or not the MAG needs to be an exclusive club. > You attended the meeting last September. It did work well, didn't it? > > >> So, the 'do we even need a MAG' experiment seems to not have much to >> do with the rotation issue, does it. > > It does also reflect the open meeting in September. It is good to get > those who organize workshops and main session fully and early involved. > > I leave at that. I think others should chip in as well. > > jeanette >> >> Second is the wrapping up of this issue in the very tempting cover of >> more openness. (As an aside I may mention that many who seem to >> support the no-MAG experiment did not support the proposal that >> the discussion list of MAG be public, which is a contradiction if >> the most pressing objective here may just be 'openness'.) Greater >> openness and even participation is a very different issue than >> doing away with a representative body, which may be required to >> accomplish many task that cannot be done by 'open houses'. We all >> know there are many such tasks, some of them stated above as >> expectations expressed by the IGC from the IGF process. >> >> So if we indeed want to explore experiments and people's views and >> where to move forward from here, we can as well be posing questions >> like >> >> "Do you think IGF should accomplish certain objectives, beyond what >> it may be achieving at present? If so. will it require a more >> structured IGF, with an active core representative multistakeholder >> group steering it?" >> And in the spirit of these questions experiment with a few different >> activities and ways of work in the MAG, instead of a >> do-we-need-a-MAG-at-all experiment. >> >> Parminder >>> >>> jeanette >>> >>> Parminder wrote: >>>> Hi All >>>> >>>> I just now posted the following message to the IGF MAG list. More >>>> openness is always welcome but there are also some larger >>>> structural questions about the mandate and efficacy of the IGF >>>> which worry me since the proposal of 'only open meetings' has been >>>> made in connection with the need or not of renewing the MAG. I will >>>> posit these larger questions a little later while I share my >>>> mentioned email. Parminder >>>> >>>> (Disclosure: I am some kind of a member of the MAG system and am >>>> funded for attending its meeting. However, to be fair to me, I was >>>> also funded to attend the planning meeting in Sept which was *not* >>>> a MAG meeting.) >>>> >>>> Dear Markus and others, >>>> >>>> A couple of questions come to my mind regarding the new proposal >>>> which could merit some discussion. >>>> >>>> Does this mean that there will be no MAG post Feb? (I understand >>>> that MAG could exist while there be only open planning meeting as >>>> in Sept last.) >>>> >>>> If so, have we looked at all the implication - tangible and >>>> intangible - of there being no MAG in existence for a whole year in >>>> the run-up to an IGF meeting, and during the meeting? >>>> >>>> Does this in fact suggest that we could anyway more or less do >>>> without a MAG, and a couple of open preparatory/ planning meetings >>>> in Geneva, outcomes of which are culled/interpreted by the >>>> secretariat, is all that is needed to hold the IGF and comply with >>>> the WSIS requirements? >>>> >>>> Does trying out this practice in the year of possible structural >>>> changes to the IGF - possibly taken up along with its renewal if it >>>> comes - can have even more special significance? >>>> >>>> Thanks and best regards >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> the MAG started discussing the issue of rotation for this year. >>>>> Some people were in favor of an extended term for the present >>>>> membership because it is not clear if the IGF's mandate will be >>>>> extended and, should it be extended, under what terms. It could be >>>>> that the MAG meeting in May would be the only one for the new MAG. >>>>> >>>>> I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on this >>>>> matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. This >>>>> afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came up with >>>>> a third solution. Markus just sent the following message to the >>>>> MAG list and asked me to forward it to the caucus list as well. I >>>>> expect the caucus will be happy about the proposed solution? >>>>> >>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>> >>>>> Jeanette has got a point! It might not go down well if any >>>>> decision were taken in this matter without consulting the broader >>>>> community! However, as there is a distinct possibility that a >>>>> renewed MAG will hold one meeting only, there is also a strong >>>>> argument against launching the heavy rotation machinery just for >>>>> the sake of this principle. >>>>> >>>>> I consulted with Jeanette and going through the pros and cons of >>>>> both approaches we both came to the conclusion that there might be >>>>> a third way. We both wondered whether there was any need for a >>>>> closed meeting at all in May. As last September's planning meeting >>>>> went rather well, we wondered whether we could not prepare most of >>>>> this year's meeting in an open process. By doing so, we would also >>>>> take into account the calls for more inclusiveness and >>>>> transparency made during the consultation in Sharm. >>>>> >>>>> The MAG would thus meet a last time next month and set the agenda >>>>> for the Vilnius meeting. The programme could be fleshed out in two >>>>> open planning meetings in May and June. >>>>> >>>>> This could also be an experiment in view of a possible renewal of >>>>> the mandate. Should the mandate be renewed, any decision on how to >>>>> continue could be taken in light of this experiment. >>>>> >>>>> Please let me know what you think about this possible approach. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Markus >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Sat Jan 16 03:13:17 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:43:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B51751D.6050008@itforchange.net> Jeanette I am separately taking up here some issues of fact related to our discussion. You know that the September meeting, last year, was held under some special and a bit strange circumstances. It was designated as not a MAG meeting but just a planning meeting. I understand that you realise the implications of this which were vaguely stated in the May MAG meeting - that since it was not a MAG meeting it can only do superficial programmatic stuff and nothing more substantial. It could not amend anything on the program document already written by the MAG, or even add anything substantial. This would hold even if everyone present in the meeting room agreed to something, it simply was not possible to do it. (We were very active on human rights agenda late last year, but the closing/ locking of the program document made it impossible to do any real stuff on it anymore after May, even if there were political mass to do it.) Do you think such openness and increased participation is of much real meaning? Is it not much much better if there is more openness and greater participation while somebody with some substantive authority is also there to take notice of what all the increased participation really contributes. To be more specific, is it not much better if the authority of the representative multistakeholder group MAG is still open and alive at these meetings to be able to make any real substantive change/ additions etc to the program document? (On a more academic note, I have seen fewer real cases of such dramatic contradiction between formal and substantive participation as this!) So questions like >The question is whether or not the MAG needs to be an exclusive club. You attended the meeting last September. >It did work well, didn't it? are not as simple and obvious as they look on the surface. Yes, I want greater non-MAG participation as IGF program is fleshed out (and that in any case happened even in 2008 when Sept meeting was a real MAG meeting) but I do not want a very sketchy IGF agenda and program (so broad as to be largely meaningless) which also is locked up early in the year (as per the present proposal of no MAG meeting post Feb, in Feb itself) with no possibilities of any real substantive input after that. Do you want that? Thats what the present proposal will do. Parminder Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > > Parminder wrote: >> Hi Jeanette, >> >> The proposal continues to bother me a lot in its possible wider >> ramifications. So excuse me to seek some clarifications, and engage >> in a bit of debate on the issue. > > I have no problem with that, on the contrary. > >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> we discussed some of the implications you mention below. >>> >>> This year's meetings following the February meeting could be >>> regarded as an experiment to find out if a MAG is needed at all. >> But why this experiment and not many others that could be attempted. >> Like MAG taking a more pro-active role of doing more inter-sessional >> work, preparing background papers etc - stuff which has been a part >> of many a proposals for IGF evolution, including from the IGC. I >> think this thing being done in the name of an experiment can be very >> pre-emptive. >> >>> Perhaps open planning meetings such as the one we had in September >>> 2009 are sufficient for setting the agenda; perhaps the need for >>> some sort of steering committee does arise, perhaps not. > >> The view that the MAG does and should only do the narrow work of >> setting a very broad agenda > > You are linking two things that seem to me indirectly connected: the > task(s) of the MAG and the selection of its membership. The idea to > open the MAG for its two meetings in May and June seemed a good idea > as it catches 2 birds with one stone. This way, we increase the > transparency of the MAG's work and we avoid the rotation process in > the face of an uncertain future. Everybody can join and help organize > the next meeting. Hence, opening up the meeting shouldn't have an > impact on the MAG's agenda or tasks. > > presupposes that only one part of the WSIS mandate >> for the IGF - acting as a policy discussion space (and that too in a >> largely unstructured way) - is relevant and should ever be attempted. >> This is what I mean by saying that the 'experiment' is pre-emptive. >> Without MAG - in fact ,without a MAG that takes up a larger set of >> goals and activities - these other parts of the IGF mandate can just >> not begun to be addressed. > > After 4 years of MAG I would say that the interpretation of the MAG's > responsibilities depends to some degree on its (rotating) membership. > I can well imagine that the MAG or any other future advisory group > might consider taking over other tasks. If I understand you correctly, > Parminder, you imply that only a formally constituted group with a > exlusive membership could take over broader responsibilities? If so, I > havn't thought about this enough to agree or disagree with you on this. > > >>> >>> Since it is unclear whether after 2010 there will be a new mandate >>> for an IGF and if so, whether the new IGF will continue to have a >>> secretariat and a non-bureau like preparatory structure, this year's >>> preparation seems to be a good opportunity to experiment with >>> processes that are more open and transparent and less burdensome. >> Burdensome! Well that depends on what we look to the IGF to achieve. >> and it is well known that there are very different views on this >> subject. So why a certain view at one end of the spectrum is made to >> look like the obvious and natural one, and processes being described >> as burdensome or not in relation to that view of the IGF's objective. >> >> Any serious difficult work can look burdensome. Helping along global >> policy making can look burdensome, but to others it may be immensely >> necessary, and also mandated by the WSIS. IGC has often sought that >> IGF/MAG does inter-sessional work, form WGs, develop background >> material, make more specific agenda with specific questions of policy >> (IRP dynamic coalition's recent statement too seeks this)... any of >> this may look burdensome, but still be very necessary to evolve >> towards. What happens to all those demands of the IGC and many >> others? Why cant we do some experiment towards this direction rather >> than in the opposite direction to it? > > I remember that we have discussed this issue before. I also remember > that I disagreed with your view on the current state of things. In my > view, the regional IGFs are evolving into a bottom-up process of > inter-sessional meetings. The fact that they are geographically > organized doesn't mean that there is no link between them. What I like > about these regional efforts is that they were not centrally organized > but emerged from local initiatives. I think this is a much better way > of creating a dense network of IGF related processes and structures > than to empower a body such as the MAG to do so. > >>> The annual rotation does involve a lot of work for both the >>> secretariat and all stakeholder groups. > >> Now, I dont see why simply extending the term of the old MAG does not >> solve that problem. > > As I said on the MAG list, I would find it unacceptable if the MAG > simply extended its term without asking those who nominated the > present members in the first place. The little reaction on the MAG > list suggests that not many members share this point of view. I'd > assume that the caucus would have loudly protested if we had just > announced that we wouldn't rotate this year but just serve another > term. Rightly so in my opinion. > > > Why should it entail an experiment to see if MAG is >> at all necessary or not. > > The question is whether or not the MAG needs to be an exclusive club. > You attended the meeting last September. It did work well, didn't it? > > >> So, the 'do we even need a MAG' experiment seems to not have much to >> do with the rotation issue, does it. > > It does also reflect the open meeting in September. It is good to get > those who organize workshops and main session fully and early involved. > > I leave at that. I think others should chip in as well. > > jeanette >> >> Second is the wrapping up of this issue in the very tempting cover of >> more openness. (As an aside I may mention that many who seem to >> support the no-MAG experiment did not support the proposal that >> the discussion list of MAG be public, which is a contradiction if >> the most pressing objective here may just be 'openness'.) Greater >> openness and even participation is a very different issue than >> doing away with a representative body, which may be required to >> accomplish many task that cannot be done by 'open houses'. We all >> know there are many such tasks, some of them stated above as >> expectations expressed by the IGC from the IGF process. >> >> So if we indeed want to explore experiments and people's views and >> where to move forward from here, we can as well be posing questions >> like >> >> "Do you think IGF should accomplish certain objectives, beyond what >> it may be achieving at present? If so. will it require a more >> structured IGF, with an active core representative multistakeholder >> group steering it?" >> And in the spirit of these questions experiment with a few different >> activities and ways of work in the MAG, instead of a >> do-we-need-a-MAG-at-all experiment. >> >> Parminder >>> >>> jeanette >>> >>> Parminder wrote: >>>> Hi All >>>> >>>> I just now posted the following message to the IGF MAG list. More >>>> openness is always welcome but there are also some larger >>>> structural questions about the mandate and efficacy of the IGF >>>> which worry me since the proposal of 'only open meetings' has been >>>> made in connection with the need or not of renewing the MAG. I will >>>> posit these larger questions a little later while I share my >>>> mentioned email. Parminder >>>> >>>> (Disclosure: I am some kind of a member of the MAG system and am >>>> funded for attending its meeting. However, to be fair to me, I was >>>> also funded to attend the planning meeting in Sept which was *not* >>>> a MAG meeting.) >>>> >>>> Dear Markus and others, >>>> >>>> A couple of questions come to my mind regarding the new proposal >>>> which could merit some discussion. >>>> >>>> Does this mean that there will be no MAG post Feb? (I understand >>>> that MAG could exist while there be only open planning meeting as >>>> in Sept last.) >>>> >>>> If so, have we looked at all the implication - tangible and >>>> intangible - of there being no MAG in existence for a whole year in >>>> the run-up to an IGF meeting, and during the meeting? >>>> >>>> Does this in fact suggest that we could anyway more or less do >>>> without a MAG, and a couple of open preparatory/ planning meetings >>>> in Geneva, outcomes of which are culled/interpreted by the >>>> secretariat, is all that is needed to hold the IGF and comply with >>>> the WSIS requirements? >>>> >>>> Does trying out this practice in the year of possible structural >>>> changes to the IGF - possibly taken up along with its renewal if it >>>> comes - can have even more special significance? >>>> >>>> Thanks and best regards >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> the MAG started discussing the issue of rotation for this year. >>>>> Some people were in favor of an extended term for the present >>>>> membership because it is not clear if the IGF's mandate will be >>>>> extended and, should it be extended, under what terms. It could be >>>>> that the MAG meeting in May would be the only one for the new MAG. >>>>> >>>>> I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on this >>>>> matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. This >>>>> afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came up with >>>>> a third solution. Markus just sent the following message to the >>>>> MAG list and asked me to forward it to the caucus list as well. I >>>>> expect the caucus will be happy about the proposed solution? >>>>> >>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>> >>>>> Jeanette has got a point! It might not go down well if any >>>>> decision were taken in this matter without consulting the broader >>>>> community! However, as there is a distinct possibility that a >>>>> renewed MAG will hold one meeting only, there is also a strong >>>>> argument against launching the heavy rotation machinery just for >>>>> the sake of this principle. >>>>> >>>>> I consulted with Jeanette and going through the pros and cons of >>>>> both approaches we both came to the conclusion that there might be >>>>> a third way. We both wondered whether there was any need for a >>>>> closed meeting at all in May. As last September's planning meeting >>>>> went rather well, we wondered whether we could not prepare most of >>>>> this year's meeting in an open process. By doing so, we would also >>>>> take into account the calls for more inclusiveness and >>>>> transparency made during the consultation in Sharm. >>>>> >>>>> The MAG would thus meet a last time next month and set the agenda >>>>> for the Vilnius meeting. The programme could be fleshed out in two >>>>> open planning meetings in May and June. >>>>> >>>>> This could also be an experiment in view of a possible renewal of >>>>> the mandate. Should the mandate be renewed, any decision on how to >>>>> continue could be taken in light of this experiment. >>>>> >>>>> Please let me know what you think about this possible approach. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Markus >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sat Jan 16 05:22:26 2010 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 05:22:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments? In-Reply-To: <176CE6EA-7FE8-4205-BD4A-D11D6A06582C@ciroap.org> References: <176CE6EA-7FE8-4205-BD4A-D11D6A06582C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <45ed74051001160222t3bb522b1u7b3b4daced146b65@mail.gmail.com> *----- respectful interfaces e-memo Jeremy 011610 -----* Dear Jeremy, and greetings All: Thank you so much for undertaking this robust position statement for us and everyone concerned. A suggestion is that while it is great to show a variety of positions and approaches, you might consider replacing the sense of dissent at some points with a sense of "additionally." This could serve to re-unify the *persona* conveyed, and really at the heart of things we are essentially in unity. Again, much appreciated, Linda M F. On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the > IGF > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of > the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related > public policy issues. However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be > extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we > believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of > incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these > suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus for > example, we believe it should remain formally convened by the UN Secretary > General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with > the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition > of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder > groups, rather than being slanted towards particular stakeholder groups as > it is at present. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a > more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions > should be more transparent - for example, perhaps it could revisit the idea > of a second, open mailing list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss > their operations publicly. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of > stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating to the > IGF's structure and processes. Many of the IGC's members believe that the > MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, ought to > exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions about the future > structure and processes of the IGF. > > A second aspect in which there is room for further improvement in the > accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive > agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this responsibility falls to > the MAG, the IGC was surprised that for instance the very strongly and > widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the > importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the > agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. > > The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation towards > the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to > recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members > would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, > efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant > external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through publications on > the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. > > Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to maximise > its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program, > rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. Many of our members > believe that this should include the development of an ongoing work program > for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and > intersessional and regional meetings. > > Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can be > left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working > groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better > mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the > IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent > standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, > and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which > reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil > society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation. We > look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in > the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > About the IGC > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are actively > engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the > World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote > global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It > now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who > have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at > http://www.igcaucus.org. > > -- > 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 -- - - - - - LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff > 914 769 3652 > law / computing / humanities: > Founder/Director *Respectful Interfaces*; > Member, Board, Secretary (Officer) - Communications Coordination Committee for the > U.N.; > World Education Fellowship; > Member Committees on disability, aging, health, values, development; > President, National Disability Party (NDP); Steering Seat, International Disability Caucus; > Persons with Pain Intl., co-founded with Carol J. Levy; > ICT multiple decades; > Other affiliations on Request. > > n.b.: > - You are welcome to join *Respectful Interfaces.* The *Respectful > Interfaces* Coda is: "Achieving Dialogue While Cherishing Diversity" (ask > about event or continuing leadership interning). > - Communication, Cooperation and Collaboration are core values of the CCC/UN. P.S. While still in initial development - you are welcome to visit the startup (not yet with alternative text or captioning) *Respectful Interfaces* website - in order to browse, make requests, join in, and send suggestions to respectful.interfaces at gmail.com. To sample *respectful Interfaces* as an enterprise framework, with references to CCC/UN and WEF, click here: http://wp.me/PFqR6-K -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 16 07:13:24 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:13:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society re IGF References: <4B4EF6B9.7050709@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AB1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AB2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi all McTim is right, there is no "rough consensus". I did not jump into the discussion because I am very busy these days with some other activities, however I follow the debate and would warn to move forward too fast. There is a need for a more fundamental clarification of the whole issue and a more strategic re-orientation of the IGC and the role of civil society in Internet Governance policy development in the coming years. This is part of a broader package of post MAG/IGF, post JPA/ICANN and post GAID/UN. What is the role of the IGC in all these processes (including the forthcoming ITU pushed WSIS Forum in May 2010 and the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in October 2010). And what the IGC is doing in other process where Internet Governance becomes an issue (ACTA is just one example)? And how the IGC positioned itself to new processes in the UN General Assembly (with regard to Internet security and governance, pushed by the government of Russia in the 2nd committee)? And what we are doing in cases like Google vs. China? Before we make hasty statements on the future of the IGF, probably we should start to discuss a more strategic vision paper on "Civil Society and Internet Governance 2015". If we have something like this until the IGF in Vilnjus this would be great. We could have an extra one day pre-conference of the IGC to invite also other stakeholders and we could organize one or two workshops around this strategic re-orientation within the IGF 2010 programme. Jeremy, I understand that as a new co-chair you want to "deliver" something, but sometimes it is better for a chair just to enable the members of the group to exchange their views, to stimulare their thinking and to moderate a bottom up opinion building process. Strong leadership includes also the capacity to listen, to ask questions (not to give quick answers) and to steer the process from behind, where needed. Best regards 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 goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Sat Jan 16 07:49:52 2010 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:49:52 -0300 Subject: [governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society re IGF In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AB2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4B4EF6B9.7050709@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AB1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AB2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4ca4162f1001160449u4534d343m7dafc48cadd3578c@mail.gmail.com> Hi all, With all my respect for all the people that works so hard in this caucus, I want to say, from a Latin American perspective, that I deeply agree with Wolfgang, when he says: "There is a need for a more fundamental clarification of the whole issue and a more strategic re-orientation of the IGC and the role of civil society in Internet Governance policy development in the coming years. This is part of a broader package of post MAG/IGF, post JPA/ICANN and post GAID/UN. What is the role of the IGC in all these processes (including the forthcoming ITU pushed WSIS Forum in May 2010 and the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in October 2010). And what the IGC is doing in other process where Internet Governance becomes an issue (ACTA is just one example)? And how the IGC positioned itself to new processes in the UN General Assembly (with regard to Internet security and governance, pushed by the government of Russia in the 2nd committee)? And what we are doing in cases like Google vs. China?" I think that it is necesary to start thinking that IG is not only what hapens at the IGF, but at all the summits, meetings, conferences, governance spaces, ICTs and telecoms industry events, etc. related to all the topics that involve civil society interests conected to Internet Governance, and where decisions are shaped and made. As a starting point, I think that we need not only a consensus, but a plan of action as well, or at least a map of posible strategies. Thank you all for the hard work you are doing, Best, Roxana 2010/1/16 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > > > Hi all > > McTim is right, there is no "rough consensus". > > I did not jump into the discussion because I am very busy these days with > some other activities, however I follow the debate and would warn to move > forward too fast. > > There is a need for a more fundamental clarification of the whole issue and > a more strategic re-orientation of the IGC and the role of civil society in > Internet Governance policy development in the coming years. This is part of > a broader package of post MAG/IGF, post JPA/ICANN and post GAID/UN. What is > the role of the IGC in all these processes (including the forthcoming ITU > pushed WSIS Forum in May 2010 and the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in > October 2010). And what the IGC is doing in other process where Internet > Governance becomes an issue (ACTA is just one example)? And how the IGC > positioned itself to new processes in the UN General Assembly (with regard > to Internet security and governance, pushed by the government of Russia in > the 2nd committee)? And what we are doing in cases like Google vs. China? > > Before we make hasty statements on the future of the IGF, probably we > should start to discuss a more strategic vision paper on "Civil Society and > Internet Governance 2015". If we have something like this until the IGF in > Vilnjus this would be great. We could have an extra one day pre-conference > of the IGC to invite also other stakeholders and we could organize one or > two workshops around this strategic re-orientation within the IGF 2010 > programme. > > Jeremy, I understand that as a new co-chair you want to "deliver" > something, but sometimes it is better for a chair just to enable the members > of the group to exchange their views, to stimulare their thinking and to > moderate a bottom up opinion building process. Strong leadership includes > also the capacity to listen, to ask questions (not to give quick answers) > and to steer the process from behind, where needed. > > Best regards > > 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Jan 16 08:50:45 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:50:45 +0500 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <701af9f71001160550m69713f22tcc707f434c216520@mail.gmail.com> After Parminder's and Jeanette's discussion, I would like to share some views of my own to stimulate more research into this issue. In my opinion the MAG+ meeting has its pros and cons and either may outweigh its importance if the clarity on the process's polarity is not carefully observed or maybe one of the most powerful positions on IGF that we may take in the very near future. The MAG+ meeting is a good idea as it gives us (IGC) the opportunity to participate together in order to forward the Civil Society concerns in front of all other stakeholders of the multistakeholderism. There was a great deal of willingness, cooperation and sharing displayed amongst all multistakeholders that showed an internal planning innovation but was not successfully displayed in the IGF 2009 main programming. See the contradiction we experienced last year. Why, CS issues continuously deliberated during the Open Consultations by IGC/CS participants as well as IGC's MAG members weren't entertained much despite interventions and counter arguments/discussions during the two day MAG meetings in June. Innovation to the main themes of the sessions as suggested by CS wasn't entertained much in the program. Why? We shouldn't forget the other two stakeholders of the multistakeholderism. This is a display of the other pressure groups in the process from the multistakeholderism, the governments and the private sector inter-related in setting and backing the agenda and less responsive to innovation as happens with an open dialogue space as the space is supposed to readjust itself according to the suggestions evolving from within that space. Science, Technology, Telecoms and the Internet advances and effects social, economic and political structures at a phenomenal rapid pace but the open spaces tend to represent the red tape turtle, why is this? The space of the Internet has two critical stakeholders that effect its present as well as future, Civil Society - the people, users, producers, consumers and then the Private Sector - the trading/business/commercial/corporate/capitalist/monopolistic systems that sell to or service the people. The governments play the role of watch dogs, governance, regulation, censoring, filtering, facilitators and infrastructure. Whose side would they be on? Within the structure of the IGF and in particular MAG, the siding of the governments with any one stakeholder in the multistakeholder turns the tables and that is what can be understood from the current challenges in the IGF political environment that we are collectively facing. The open consultations can be easily over powered by a wide range of stakeholder interest groups and if there was a MAG convened after that, one key stakeholder sided by the governments would be able to continue to influence the programming of the IGF. So both are inter related. Within the context of the MAG+, as many of the participants may have observed, the MAG representatives of their stakeholder respective groups of the multistakeholderism combined with the members/interest groups (from the stakeholder groups they represent) displayed a powerful grip on the programming of the IGF2009. This is the open imbalance that most of us have been intervening here and at the meetings about. This is one of the notorious speed breakers in the process towards innovation to the open space for dialogue on Internet Governance and its related issues. Two stakeholders wiggle out of the Human Rights issues and then one group continuously opposes the development agenda because then the CS/People's stakeholder group will be supported by the Governments stakeholder group because the element of development and cooperation today has to be supported by this default relationship. Interestingly the issues of Human Rights with regards to the Internet and the issues of Development or exploring an agenda for development with regards to Internet Governance or so inter-related that the scared stakeholder group totally freaks out at the idea of anyone of these coming into the main program. Their strategic button, their commercial and business benefit to countries and pressuring on governments is the only means to counter anything they consider as propaganda or lobbying to affect their positions and this is very visible since ages. What we now have to understand is that how can we use this situation wisely to raise our concerns and to get considerable improvement in the process. Having a MAG or not having it is again up to the collective intelligence and consent of the all three stakeholders of the multistakeholderism, i.e, Governments, Private Sector and Civil Society. From what I observed on the MAG mailing list was the first two stakeholders of the stakeholderism grouping up again. This is a very big imbalance and there is also a certain level of fear displayed here that outside groups might be able to come in and over power the process through political siding based on personal or group agendas etc....and this issues can be applied in different terms and views to the different stakeholder groups of the multistakeholderism. Okay, we do have a common understanding amongst most of the MAG members for a MAG+ meeting but the rotation is still a critical issue. I do see it as both a critical and important issue and that we should collectively and intelligently handle this with careful tact and observation. Do we want to experiment jeopardizing our position amidst this continuous lobbying against our concerns or should we strengthen ourselves within this moment to collectively emerge as a strong IGC stakeholder group that participates actively and heavily in the Open Consultations PLUS MAG+ meeting, strongly raising our concerns, rotating the MAG, changing not only faces hiding behind several hats but developing strength to over power the lobbying? How do we go about this? What is our collective stance? Do we have a short and easily describable stance or plan of action here? How can we productively use the OC or MAG+ to bridge the gap and facilitate our stakeholder group without compromising our position to the lobbies that may use the OC and MAG+ to overpower their positions and continue to effect prevention of innovation to the IGF Main Programme? MAG or no MAG shouldn't be a threat to our concerns and the views and issues brought forward by our stakeholders of the IGC. We should move ahead to rotate the MAG membership, have improvement and replace the people with the same faces and multiple hats. So since I don't want to counter argument, Parminder and Jeanette, how can IGC make use of this important OC+MAG+ meeting and strengthen our position? What should we do to get the Human Rights and Development Agenda issues on the main programming? What kind of reforms that we collectively agree upon should be applied to the MAG and how do we see the IGF post 2010 and our position within that? How do we re-strengthen and represent ourselves in the wider Internet Government activities? How do we involve ourselves in other forums of ITU and convince them to include IGC/CS in their processes? How does IGC engage at ICANN to represent CS and so forth? -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > > Parminder wrote: >> >> Hi Jeanette, >> >> The proposal continues to bother me a lot in its possible wider >> ramifications. So excuse me to seek some clarifications, and engage in a bit >> of debate on the issue. > > I have no problem with that, on the contrary. > >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> we discussed some of the implications you mention below. >>> >>> This year's meetings following the February meeting could be regarded as >>> an experiment to find out if a MAG is needed at all. >> >> But why this experiment and not many others that could be attempted. Like >> MAG taking a more pro-active role of doing more inter-sessional work, >> preparing background papers etc - stuff which has been a part of many a >> proposals for IGF evolution, including from the IGC. I think this thing >> being done in the name of an experiment can be very pre-emptive. >> >>> Perhaps open planning meetings such as the one we had in September 2009 >>> are sufficient for setting the agenda; perhaps the need for some sort 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jan 16 09:23:03 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:53:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society re IGF In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AB2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4B4EF6B9.7050709@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AB1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AB2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4B51CBC7.80206@itforchange.net> Wolfgang It is just not that as a new co-chair Jeremy wants to deliver something. We always make a statement post IGF at feb meeting and what he is trying he must try as a co-chair. We are already slipping in making statements when needed, and this is because there is a certain amount of disengagement by many members who were earlier active in developing statements. Jeremy never said there *was* rough consensus. He only proposed a rough consensus. Some members were of the view that there should be para by para discussions. It is for us to do it. The initial draft - always necessary if things have to roll - is out there. There is nothing co-chairs can do to trigger para by para discussion. we have more than three weeks to the open consultation - plenty of time, so lets work on it. I do however agree with you to work towards longer term vision document, and perhaps meetings around this process. But for the present lets try to devleop this statement, and also reflect the situation of civil society in IG arena, specifically IGC, and what can we do to get it more active for the very important task that it has. Will like to hear your comments on this. Parminder Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > > Hi all > > McTim is right, there is no "rough consensus". > > I did not jump into the discussion because I am very busy these days with some other activities, however I follow the debate and would warn to move forward too fast. > > There is a need for a more fundamental clarification of the whole issue and a more strategic re-orientation of the IGC and the role of civil society in Internet Governance policy development in the coming years. This is part of a broader package of post MAG/IGF, post JPA/ICANN and post GAID/UN. What is the role of the IGC in all these processes (including the forthcoming ITU pushed WSIS Forum in May 2010 and the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in October 2010). And what the IGC is doing in other process where Internet Governance becomes an issue (ACTA is just one example)? And how the IGC positioned itself to new processes in the UN General Assembly (with regard to Internet security and governance, pushed by the government of Russia in the 2nd committee)? And what we are doing in cases like Google vs. China? > > Before we make hasty statements on the future of the IGF, probably we should start to discuss a more strategic vision paper on "Civil Society and Internet Governance 2015". If we have something like this until the IGF in Vilnjus this would be great. We could have an extra one day pre-conference of the IGC to invite also other stakeholders and we could organize one or two workshops around this strategic re-orientation within the IGF 2010 programme. > > Jeremy, I understand that as a new co-chair you want to "deliver" something, but sometimes it is better for a chair just to enable the members of the group to exchange their views, to stimulare their thinking and to moderate a bottom up opinion building process. Strong leadership includes also the capacity to listen, to ask questions (not to give quick answers) and to steer the process from behind, where needed. > > Best regards > > 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Sat Jan 16 10:46:21 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:46:21 +0000 Subject: [governance] Date for IGF planning meeting Message-ID: <4B51DF4D.2070407@wzb.eu> Hi, the secretariat has scheduled another meeting before the summer break to prepare the program for the next IGF. Here is what Markus wrote to the MAG list: For planning purposes, given the fact that this year's meeting is already in mid September we will need an additional meeting prior to the summer break. I suggest repeating what we did last year, that is holding an open planning meeting to fine tune the programme. To accommodate those who travel to Europe from afar I reserved 28-29 June for this purpose, that is at the beginning of the week immediately after the ICANN meeting in Brussels. I hope this is convenient to all of you. jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Sat Jan 16 10:55:31 2010 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:55:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society re In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AB2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4B4EF6B9.7050709@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AB1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AB2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: All, I thank Wolfgang for contributing the wisdom in his message below to the list. In particular, the notion of a long run strategy, with long run defined goals and objectives for civil society, is very appealing. It would provide a compact and clearly articulated vision of what the desired goals are as well as a guide for short run activities that would encourage the attainment of those goals. I like Wolfgang's emphasis on viewing civil society activities in a broader scope, including not only IGF but also ITU, GAID and the United Nations. There are a number of players in this space; some will continue play in it indefinitely, some will fade out of existence, and others are likely to be born. Having a vision that concentrates upon principles is likely to me more useful in a shifting landscape of different organizations with changing and different objectives. Having long run articulated goals that are not so utopian as to be unachievable appeals very much to me. As Wolfgang notes, there will be a post-MAG/IGF period, we are already entering a post-JPA/ICANN period, and it's likely that there will be a post-GAID period also. What in the long run are the characteristics of the Internet governance regime -- as well as the state of ICT4D delivery (which may be as or more important) -- that civil society could practically achieve in those future periods? Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 1:13 PM +0100 1/16/10, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > >Hi all > >McTim is right, there is no "rough consensus". > >I did not jump into the discussion because I am >very busy these days with some other activities, >however I follow the debate and would warn to >move forward too fast. > >There is a need for a more fundamental >clarification of the whole issue and a more >strategic re-orientation of the IGC and the role >of civil society in Internet Governance policy >development in the coming years. This is part of >a broader package of post MAG/IGF, post >JPA/ICANN and post GAID/UN. What is the role of >the IGC in all these processes (including the >forthcoming ITU pushed WSIS Forum in May 2010 >and the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in >October 2010). And what the IGC is doing in >other process where Internet Governance becomes >an issue (ACTA is just one example)? And how the >IGC positioned itself to new processes in the UN >General Assembly (with regard to Internet >security and governance, pushed by the >government of Russia in the 2nd committee)? And >what we are doing in cases like Google vs. China? > >Before we make hasty statements on the future of >the IGF, probably we should start to discuss a >more strategic vision paper on "Civil Society >and Internet Governance 2015". If we have >something like this until the IGF in Vilnjus >this would be great. We could have an extra one >day pre-conference of the IGC to invite also >other stakeholders and we could organize one or >two workshops around this strategic >re-orientation within the IGF 2010 programme. > >Jeremy, I understand that as a new co-chair you >want to "deliver" something, but sometimes it is >better for a chair just to enable the members of >the group to exchange their views, to stimulare >their thinking and to moderate a bottom up >opinion building process. Strong leadership >includes also the capacity to listen, to ask >questions (not to give quick answers) and to >steer the process from behind, where needed. > >Best regards > >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 Sat Jan 16 11:25:43 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:25:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society re IGF In-Reply-To: <4B51CBC7.80206@itforchange.net> References: <4B4EF6B9.7050709@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AB1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AB2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4B51CBC7.80206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4cveuWiHieULFAh$@perry.co.uk> In message <4B51CBC7.80206 at itforchange.net>, at 19:53:03 on Sat, 16 Jan 2010, Parminder writes >Jeremy never said there *was* rough consensus. He only proposed a rough >consensus. I can see what might be confusing. In his draft statement, Jeremy said: "We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation." But obviously, until that draft statement is agreed, and becomes a final statement, the list hasn't reached that consensus yet. -- 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 16 12:34:14 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:34:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society re IGF In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AB2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <326081.91626.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Block movement. Pontificate all the complexities. Show how hard all this is. Give sage advice out of a book. Without stating it, show us how up you are on all subjects.  Claim too busy and important to participate here -- but obstruct.  The word pompous comes to mind.   Any logical mind would have grasped the wording being drafted for the conclusion of the document.  He cannot draft a document saying "we have not reached consensus". It is amazing when truly gifted wise people are so socially ignorant to say; "I am too busy to contribute but I have all the time in the world to give advice and tell you what is wrong"   Here we have the logic: There is no rough consensus because I say so.  The theory that because people are silent they do not agree is for malcontents and egotists that feel they have not gotten the credits they deserve. Clearly the burden is on those who do not agree to say so.Silence is acquiescence, combined with voluntary membership is support.  This elitism is contageous. And it builds itself when the elitists join together and give each other awards and public Kudos.   (this reminds me of an American President getting a peace prize while he is sending 30,000 off to war --- He may be great, he may be righteous -- but he damn sure ain't peaceful)  Someone might say great things and be supersmart, but if he does not contribute he is not helpful. --- On Sat, 1/16/10, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Subject: [governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society re IGF To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Saturday, January 16, 2010, 12:13 PM Hi all McTim is right, there is no "rough consensus". I did not jump into the discussion because I am very busy these days with some other activities, however I follow the debate and would warn to move forward too fast. There is a need for a more fundamental clarification of the whole issue and a more strategic re-orientation of the IGC and the role of civil society in Internet Governance policy development in the coming years. This is part of a broader package of post MAG/IGF, post JPA/ICANN and post GAID/UN. What is the role of the IGC in all these processes (including the forthcoming ITU pushed WSIS Forum in May 2010 and the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in October 2010). And what the IGC is doing in other process where Internet Governance becomes an issue (ACTA is just one example)? And how the IGC positioned itself to new processes in the UN General Assembly (with regard to Internet security and governance, pushed by the government of Russia in the 2nd committee)? And what we are doing in cases like Google vs. China? Before we make hasty statements on the future of the IGF, probably we should start to discuss a more strategic vision paper on "Civil Society and Internet Governance 2015". If we have something like this until the IGF in Vilnjus this would be great. We could have an extra one day pre-conference of the IGC to invite also other stakeholders and we could organize one or two workshops around this strategic re-orientation within the IGF 2010 programme.  Jeremy, I understand that as a new co-chair you want to "deliver" something, but sometimes it is better for a chair just to enable the members of the group to exchange their views, to stimulare their thinking and to moderate a bottom up opinion building process. Strong leadership includes also the capacity to listen, to ask questions (not to give quick answers) and to steer the process from behind, where needed. Best regards 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Sat Jan 16 12:47:46 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:47:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B516ABC.1080708@itforchange.net> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B516ABC.1080708@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B51FBC2.7020407@wzb.eu> Hi Parminder, > My first task will be to emphatically restate my position on openness > and participative-ness, I have never had any doubt about your position on openness in general and I do understand that your issue is with forms and implications of openness. > So while we seek more openness, we do look with considerable suspicion > at 'openness' which may, or even be designed in order to, make the > substantial evaporate. I hope you don't mean to accuse me of setting up something to make substance evaporate. > Meanwhile allow me to discuss an entirely different issue - the radical > 'do-we-even-need-a-MAG' experiment. While I myself saw this proposal as > possibly clearing the way for the new structural possibility of no MAG > or a greatly weakened MAG, you yourself confirmed that, in your words > > "This year's meetings following the February meeting could be > regarded as an experiment to find out if a MAG is needed at all." > > > You would agree that this is a rather drastic experiment. I would say it is not clear right now whether or not this is going to be a drastic experiment. Opening up some or all MAG meetings might not change that much after all. It is certainly not meant to be a drastic experiment, it builds on the experience of the open planning meeting in September. You say in your other email that its background was a bit odd. True, but I would say that except for the "breakout groups" we formed around the main session topics not much was different from an ordinary MAG meeting. The closer to the actual IGF meeting, the more operational the MAG meetings have been over the last years. My guess is that even without this experiment to open MAG meetings, we would have considered an open planning meeting for all workshop organizers before the next IGF. Who chose to > try this experiment (and why) rather than, and I repeat, other > experiments more in keeping with IGC's earlier position to seek outcomes > from MAG/ IGF system like background material/ papers on key themes for > the IGF, greater specificity of key policy issues to be taken up, > inter-sessional thematic work etc. My answer to your question is super pragmatic and won't satisfy you. Your question seems to imply that we wanted to be experimental and made a choice of experimental options. This is not the case. The experiment was born out of a specific problem: a full rotation circle for one or at best two meetings this year seemed a lot of work, yet simply extending the term of the current members would most likely evoked criticism. (if you want I can flesh out how such > experiments can be tried.) To propose this experiment over others, This experiment is not privileged over others. I repeat, we didn't choose among various experiments. On the other hand, I don't expect this to be the last experiment of incremental change we'll see should the IGF get a new mandate. On the contrary, so far I think the IGF has been almost constantly changing, and I do hope that this spirit of trying out structures and procedures will be maintained. I am also optimistic that we will or would see changes with regard to outcomes. It might start with more semantic artifices than substantive outcomes but even this would be open to change. It seems crucial to avoid accelerating such developments because skeptics need to be convinced as well. I beg > to state, is an ideological position on one end of a large spectrum of > views on what IGF should do. And, putting into effect this experiment > would serve to preempt movement towards these greater possibilities, > which in the view of many people are needed to be explored in order to > meet the full mandate of the IGF. I beg to differ. First, if many people think it was a bad idea to open MAG meetings, a new MAG can be formed under the new mandate. Second, I am not convinced that the political weight and responsibility of the MAG depends solely or mainly on the question of openness. The crucial question in my view is whether or not stakeholders bring their issues to the IGF and accept it as a venue for fleshing out practical solutions. (I understand Fouad's email as a request to discuss how such a goal can be achieved.) The more political relevant the IGF, the more relevant are the preparatory meetings and vice versa. The MAG per se is not important and, I think, cannot simply be declared to gain importance. My guess is that we have very different opinions on the MAG's sources of authority and relevance. For me, the MAG, open or closed, can only do substantive things if there is a broad consensus "out there" among the stakeholders that more substance would a good thing. The formal rules and structures of the MAG pale in comparison. And now I plan to have a weekend :-) jeanette > > >If I understand you correctly, Parminder, you imply that only a > formally constituted group with a exlusive >membership could take over > broader responsibilities? If so, I havn't thought about this enough to > agree or >disagree with you on this. > > Yes, I think only a formally constituted group, but with strong > processes of openness and participation, can take up these broader > responsibilities. As for doing our thinking on this, I must say that we > need to do it now, and before we suggest structural experiments of the > kind do-we-need-a-MAG. Obviously, thinking about what we expect a system > to achieve, and how, should come before we meddle with its structure. > This is the reason that I proposed that a particular kind of structural > meddling/ change/ experiment presupposes a certain view of IGF's purpose > and possibilities, whether we hold it consciously or not. And this view > of IGF's purpose in my opinion is very one-sided. > > Do you really think that an open house (if the do-we-need-MAG experiment > succeeds, on whatever basis success is construed, that is all we will be > left with) can really do the following tasks - > > * Do intensive discussion/ negotiation to come up with specific > policy questions for IGF's consideration (As IRP DC statement > seeks and IGC has also sought in the past) > * Do elaborate linking and structuring of main sessions and > workshops to get the best synergies out (again roughly from IRP DC > statement, but also from IGC's earlier statements) > * Discuss/ negotiate specific sub themes and discussion areas, for > themes like CIR and openness which are politically volatile in > order to have meaningful progress in these vital areas > * Select panelists > * Interact with other policy institutions (as per WSIS mandate) > * Come up with background material on some themes, syntheisize some > kind of outcomes of some IGF processes etc - things which IGC have > called for earlier , and also needed to fulfill WSIS mandate of > giving advice/ recommendations > * There are many other things to possibly do for a group with clear > membership and not an 'open house', like suggested by Charity vis > a vis remote participation, but I will stop here. > > > Do we realize that if a broadly representative mutlistakeholder group > like the MAG did not do all this, who will really end up doing it and > taking the decisions. Would that eventuality enhance openness and > participation, or greatly curtail it? Can we suggest -do-we-need-MAG > kind of experiments, nay actually take them up, without consideration to > these basic issues? > > > parminder > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Hi Parminder, >> >> >> Parminder wrote: >>> Hi Jeanette, >>> >>> The proposal continues to bother me a lot in its possible wider >>> ramifications. So excuse me to seek some clarifications, and engage >>> in a bit of debate on the issue. >> >> I have no problem with that, on the contrary. >> >>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> we discussed some of the implications you mention below. >>>> >>>> This year's meetings following the February meeting could be >>>> regarded as an experiment to find out if a MAG is needed at all. >>> But why this experiment and not many others that could be attempted. >>> Like MAG taking a more pro-active role of doing more inter-sessional >>> work, preparing background papers etc - stuff which has been a part >>> of many a proposals for IGF evolution, including from the IGC. I >>> think this thing being done in the name of an experiment can be very >>> pre-emptive. >>> >>>> Perhaps open planning meetings such as the one we had in September >>>> 2009 are sufficient for setting the agenda; perhaps the need for >>>> some sort of steering committee does arise, perhaps not. >> >>> The view that the MAG does and should only do the narrow work of >>> setting a very broad agenda >> >> You are linking two things that seem to me indirectly connected: the >> task(s) of the MAG and the selection of its membership. The idea to >> open the MAG for its two meetings in May and June seemed a good idea >> as it catches 2 birds with one stone. This way, we increase the >> transparency of the MAG's work and we avoid the rotation process in >> the face of an uncertain future. Everybody can join and help organize >> the next meeting. Hence, opening up the meeting shouldn't have an >> impact on the MAG's agenda or tasks. >> >> presupposes that only one part of the WSIS mandate >>> for the IGF - acting as a policy discussion space (and that too in a >>> largely unstructured way) - is relevant and should ever be attempted. >>> This is what I mean by saying that the 'experiment' is pre-emptive. >>> Without MAG - in fact ,without a MAG that takes up a larger set of >>> goals and activities - these other parts of the IGF mandate can just >>> not begun to be addressed. >> >> After 4 years of MAG I would say that the interpretation of the MAG's >> responsibilities depends to some degree on its (rotating) membership. >> I can well imagine that the MAG or any other future advisory group >> might consider taking over other tasks. If I understand you correctly, >> Parminder, you imply that only a formally constituted group with a >> exlusive membership could take over broader responsibilities? If so, I >> havn't thought about this enough to agree or disagree with you on this. >> >> >>>> >>>> Since it is unclear whether after 2010 there will be a new mandate >>>> for an IGF and if so, whether the new IGF will continue to have a >>>> secretariat and a non-bureau like preparatory structure, this year's >>>> preparation seems to be a good opportunity to experiment with >>>> processes that are more open and transparent and less burdensome. >>> Burdensome! Well that depends on what we look to the IGF to achieve. >>> and it is well known that there are very different views on this >>> subject. So why a certain view at one end of the spectrum is made to >>> look like the obvious and natural one, and processes being described >>> as burdensome or not in relation to that view of the IGF's objective. >>> >>> Any serious difficult work can look burdensome. Helping along global >>> policy making can look burdensome, but to others it may be immensely >>> necessary, and also mandated by the WSIS. IGC has often sought that >>> IGF/MAG does inter-sessional work, form WGs, develop background >>> material, make more specific agenda with specific questions of policy >>> (IRP dynamic coalition's recent statement too seeks this)... any of >>> this may look burdensome, but still be very necessary to evolve >>> towards. What happens to all those demands of the IGC and many >>> others? Why cant we do some experiment towards this direction rather >>> than in the opposite direction to it? >> >> I remember that we have discussed this issue before. I also remember >> that I disagreed with your view on the current state of things. In my >> view, the regional IGFs are evolving into a bottom-up process of >> inter-sessional meetings. The fact that they are geographically >> organized doesn't mean that there is no link between them. What I like >> about these regional efforts is that they were not centrally organized >> but emerged from local initiatives. I think this is a much better way >> of creating a dense network of IGF related processes and structures >> than to empower a body such as the MAG to do so. >> >>>> The annual rotation does involve a lot of work for both the >>>> secretariat and all stakeholder groups. >> >>> Now, I dont see why simply extending the term of the old MAG does not >>> solve that problem. >> >> As I said on the MAG list, I would find it unacceptable if the MAG >> simply extended its term without asking those who nominated the >> present members in the first place. The little reaction on the MAG >> list suggests that not many members share this point of view. I'd >> assume that the caucus would have loudly protested if we had just >> announced that we wouldn't rotate this year but just serve another >> term. Rightly so in my opinion. >> >> >> Why should it entail an experiment to see if MAG is >>> at all necessary or not. >> >> The question is whether or not the MAG needs to be an exclusive club. >> You attended the meeting last September. It did work well, didn't it? >> >> >>> So, the 'do we even need a MAG' experiment seems to not have much to >>> do with the rotation issue, does it. >> >> It does also reflect the open meeting in September. It is good to get >> those who organize workshops and main session fully and early involved. >> >> I leave at that. I think others should chip in as well. >> >> jeanette >>> >>> Second is the wrapping up of this issue in the very tempting cover of >>> more openness. (As an aside I may mention that many who seem to >>> support the no-MAG experiment did not support the proposal that >>> the discussion list of MAG be public, which is a contradiction if >>> the most pressing objective here may just be 'openness'.) Greater >>> openness and even participation is a very different issue than >>> doing away with a representative body, which may be required to >>> accomplish many task that cannot be done by 'open houses'. We all >>> know there are many such tasks, some of them stated above as >>> expectations expressed by the IGC from the IGF process. >>> >>> So if we indeed want to explore experiments and people's views and >>> where to move forward from here, we can as well be posing questions >>> like >>> >>> "Do you think IGF should accomplish certain objectives, beyond what >>> it may be achieving at present? If so. will it require a more >>> structured IGF, with an active core representative multistakeholder >>> group steering it?" >>> And in the spirit of these questions experiment with a few different >>> activities and ways of work in the MAG, instead of a >>> do-we-need-a-MAG-at-all experiment. >>> >>> Parminder >>>> >>>> jeanette >>>> >>>> Parminder wrote: >>>>> Hi All >>>>> >>>>> I just now posted the following message to the IGF MAG list. More >>>>> openness is always welcome but there are also some larger >>>>> structural questions about the mandate and efficacy of the IGF >>>>> which worry me since the proposal of 'only open meetings' has been >>>>> made in connection with the need or not of renewing the MAG. I will >>>>> posit these larger questions a little later while I share my >>>>> mentioned email. Parminder >>>>> >>>>> (Disclosure: I am some kind of a member of the MAG system and am >>>>> funded for attending its meeting. However, to be fair to me, I was >>>>> also funded to attend the planning meeting in Sept which was *not* >>>>> a MAG meeting.) >>>>> >>>>> Dear Markus and others, >>>>> >>>>> A couple of questions come to my mind regarding the new proposal >>>>> which could merit some discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Does this mean that there will be no MAG post Feb? (I understand >>>>> that MAG could exist while there be only open planning meeting as >>>>> in Sept last.) >>>>> >>>>> If so, have we looked at all the implication - tangible and >>>>> intangible - of there being no MAG in existence for a whole year in >>>>> the run-up to an IGF meeting, and during the meeting? >>>>> >>>>> Does this in fact suggest that we could anyway more or less do >>>>> without a MAG, and a couple of open preparatory/ planning meetings >>>>> in Geneva, outcomes of which are culled/interpreted by the >>>>> secretariat, is all that is needed to hold the IGF and comply with >>>>> the WSIS requirements? >>>>> >>>>> Does trying out this practice in the year of possible structural >>>>> changes to the IGF - possibly taken up along with its renewal if it >>>>> comes - can have even more special significance? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks and best regards >>>>> >>>>> Parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> the MAG started discussing the issue of rotation for this year. >>>>>> Some people were in favor of an extended term for the present >>>>>> membership because it is not clear if the IGF's mandate will be >>>>>> extended and, should it be extended, under what terms. It could be >>>>>> that the MAG meeting in May would be the only one for the new MAG. >>>>>> >>>>>> I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on this >>>>>> matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. This >>>>>> afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came up with >>>>>> a third solution. Markus just sent the following message to the >>>>>> MAG list and asked me to forward it to the caucus list as well. I >>>>>> expect the caucus will be happy about the proposed solution? >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeanette has got a point! It might not go down well if any >>>>>> decision were taken in this matter without consulting the broader >>>>>> community! However, as there is a distinct possibility that a >>>>>> renewed MAG will hold one meeting only, there is also a strong >>>>>> argument against launching the heavy rotation machinery just for >>>>>> the sake of this principle. >>>>>> >>>>>> I consulted with Jeanette and going through the pros and cons of >>>>>> both approaches we both came to the conclusion that there might be >>>>>> a third way. We both wondered whether there was any need for a >>>>>> closed meeting at all in May. As last September's planning meeting >>>>>> went rather well, we wondered whether we could not prepare most of >>>>>> this year's meeting in an open process. By doing so, we would also >>>>>> take into account the calls for more inclusiveness and >>>>>> transparency made during the consultation in Sharm. >>>>>> >>>>>> The MAG would thus meet a last time next month and set the agenda >>>>>> for the Vilnius meeting. The programme could be fleshed out in two >>>>>> open planning meetings in May and June. >>>>>> >>>>>> This could also be an experiment in view of a possible renewal of >>>>>> the mandate. Should the mandate be renewed, any decision on how to >>>>>> continue could be taken in light of this experiment. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please let me know what you think about this possible approach. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards >>>>>> Markus >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> >>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 16 13:22:05 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:22:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments? In-Reply-To: <176CE6EA-7FE8-4205-BD4A-D11D6A06582C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <85158.69033.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Yes Jeremy I have a very serious comment.   Stay the course. You are beginning to rock the boat. Those who enjoy their status and status quo at the top of this area, will lend their wisdom to dissuade you. They will offer positions and recognition for falling into lockstep.  The will always and I mean always detract from good works by claiming that you have not enough support or "consensus".  They will scratch their whiskers and give sage advice that is calculated to make you and others think your work is not worthy. They will get your supporters to withdraw support for Ideals and switch to pet projects that fit their own agenda.   You will soon face a choice - go the way of Younger or go the way of Gaetano.  Make note that ICANN can so elevate you as to make you a participant in ICANN in 1997, as they do with Gaetano -- ICANN founded in 1998. Or they can make it so you never have a position. --- On Fri, 1/15/10, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: From: Jeremy Malcolm Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, January 15, 2010, 4:46 PM Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.  However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006.  None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular stakeholder groups as it is at present.  Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations publicly. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating to the IGF's structure and processes.  Many of the IGC's members believe that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions about the future structure and processes of the IGF. A second aspect in which there is room for further improvement in the accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings.  Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that for instance the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would support outputs of such kinds).  Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting.  Many of our members believe that this should include the development of an ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working groups).  In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation.  We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. About the IGC The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter.  More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. --  Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world.  http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jfcallo at isocperu.org Sat Jan 16 13:23:29 2010 From: jfcallo at isocperu.org (jfcallo at isocperu.org) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:23:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] Sociedad Civil es una cosa y no otra In-Reply-To: <461940.65984.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <461940.65984.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20100116132329.m9r9uvlfkwkkkk8c@www.isocperu.org> (Spanish) Respetables miembros Sr. Salinas Porto: Debo manifestar mi opinion con respecto a un concepto sobre sociedad civil, muy sutilmente planteado por el Sr. Salinas. La Sociedad Civil se agrupa y conforma una organizacion, no es que se hable de seres aislados, lo que pasa que muchas veces la representacion de la Sociedad Civil, es usurpada por ONG´s que poco o nada hacen por representar a esa Sociedad Civil que tanto pregonan estos representantes y que por lo general, en paises de Latinoamerica, ha servido para generar grupusculos que buscan solo su beneficio propio y viven de donaciones, bajo el pretexto que hacen obra por esa Sociedad Civil, obra y accion que nunca llega, por que manejan muy bien sus "lobbys" quienes han hecho de esto una forma "parasitaria" de vivir. No se puede ni debe pretender aislar a nadie, el hecho que un profesional o una persona no pertenesca a un grupo o institucion, no la descalifica como estudioso o investigador de un determinado tema. Al final sera su aporte el que mejor lo represente, porque todos somos miembros de una sociedad civil. Gracias (English) Mr. Salinas Porto respectable members: I express my opinion regarding a concept for civil society, subtly raised by Mr. Salinas. Civil Society groups and forms an organization, not to talk about isolated people, what happens many times the representation of Civil Society, is usurped by ONG´s that do little or nothing to represent the Civil Society both proclaim these representatives and usually in Latin American countries, has served to create small groups that seek only its own profits and live off donations, under the pretext that they do work on civil society, work and action that never comes, for they handle very well their "lobbyists" who have made this a form of "parasitic" to live. You can or should try to isolate anyone, the fact that a professional or a person belonged to a group or institution, not disqualified as a scholar or researcher of a particular topic. At the end of your contribution will represent the best because we are all members of civil society. Thanks Jose F. Callo Romero Secretario ISOC Peru > Spanish & English > Spanish > Estimados todos: Con respecto a lo sugerido por Souter, creo que es > importante la representación de sociedad civil y no la de individuos > aislados. Es necesario que la representación sea de un colectivo de > opinión y voluntad común y no la del sujeto aislado. Lo que se > discute acá es siempre en función del hombre como ser colectivo, > como expresión de intereses comunes y no de intereses individuales, > nuestra fortaleza radica ahí y no en nuestras individualidades. Me > sumo a lo expresado por Baudouin con respecto a seguir lo que se > discute en la lista;  estoy al tanto de lo que se discute aunque > poco he podido hacer en función de la brecha que impone el idioma, > así y todo estoy todos los días intentando poner mi ingles lo mejor > posible para poder intervenir más. > Saludos cordiales > Sergio Salinas Porto > Internauta A rgentina > Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet > http://www.internauta.org.ar > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 16 13:55:27 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:55:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Sociedad Civil es una cosa y no otra In-Reply-To: <20100116132329.m9r9uvlfkwkkkk8c@www.isocperu.org> Message-ID: <503390.4293.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> por favor perdone mi español feo*   Quiero que usted sepa que este no es un problema latinoamericano, solomente. Esto es una enfermedad que efectúa todo acadamia y la caridad y intellectuals todo mundo. No es bonito. La única cura para este problema es usted. Cada persona a quien han dado el lujo de una mente culta y tiempo tiene una obligación de guardar aquellos que viven de las donaciones en el control. Usted debe seguir sus postes aquí. Usted debe seguirlo cuando usted es agotado, fustrated y desesperado. Y sobre todo usted debe contribuirse para hacer cosas mejor. Y sepa que nos preocupamos realmente y escuchamos. Uno voce, de uno angel es magnificato.   (english)   I want you to know that this is not a Latin American problem.  It is a disease that effects all acadamia and charity. It is not pretty. The only cure for this problem is you. Each person who has been given the luxury of an educated mind and time has an obligation to keep those that live off the donations in check. You must continue your posts here. You must continue it when you are exhausted, fustrated and hopeless. And most of all you must contribute to make things better. And know that we do care and are listening. The voice of one angel is magnificent.   *learned in backstreets with illiterates, listened to in boardrooms and smokefilled backrooms, studied in books, complimented with Latin so like a fish out of water.   **learned en backstreets con analfabetos, escuchó a en salas de conferencias y trastiendas smokefilled, estudiadas en libros, congratulados con el latín tan como un pescado del agua. --- On Sat, 1/16/10, jfcallo at isocperu.org wrote: From: jfcallo at isocperu.org Subject: [governance] Sociedad Civil es una cosa y no otra To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Saturday, January 16, 2010, 6:23 PM (Spanish) Respetables miembros Sr. Salinas Porto: Debo manifestar mi opinion con respecto a un concepto sobre sociedad civil, muy sutilmente planteado por el Sr. Salinas. La Sociedad Civil se agrupa y conforma una organizacion, no es que se hable de seres aislados, lo que pasa que muchas veces la representacion de la Sociedad Civil, es usurpada por ONG´s que poco o nada hacen por representar a esa Sociedad Civil que tanto pregonan estos representantes y que por lo general, en paises de Latinoamerica, ha servido para generar grupusculos que buscan solo su beneficio propio y viven de donaciones, bajo el pretexto que hacen obra por esa Sociedad Civil, obra y accion que nunca llega, por que manejan muy bien sus "lobbys" quienes han hecho de esto una forma "parasitaria" de vivir. No se puede ni debe pretender aislar a nadie, el hecho que un profesional o una persona no pertenesca a un grupo o institucion, no la descalifica como estudioso o investigador de un determinado tema. Al final sera su aporte el que mejor lo represente, porque todos somos miembros de una sociedad civil. Gracias (English) Mr. Salinas Porto respectable members: I express my opinion regarding a concept for civil society, subtly raised by Mr. Salinas. Civil Society groups and forms an organization, not to talk about isolated people, what happens many times the representation of Civil Society, is usurped by ONG´s that do little or nothing to represent the Civil Society both proclaim these representatives and usually in Latin American countries, has served to create small groups that seek only its own profits and live off donations, under the pretext that they do work on civil society, work and action that never comes, for they handle very well their "lobbyists" who have made this a form of "parasitic" to live. You can or should try to isolate anyone, the fact that a professional or a person belonged to a group or institution, not disqualified as a scholar or researcher of a particular topic. At the end of your contribution will represent the best because we are all members of civil society. Thanks Jose F. Callo Romero     Secretario     ISOC Peru > Spanish & English > Spanish > Estimados todos: Con respecto a lo sugerido por Souter, creo que es importante la representación de sociedad civil y no la de individuos aislados. Es necesario que la representación sea de un colectivo de opinión y voluntad común y no la del sujeto aislado. Lo que se discute acá es siempre en función del hombre como ser colectivo, como expresión de intereses comunes y no de intereses individuales, nuestra fortaleza radica ahí y no en nuestras individualidades. Me sumo a lo expresado por Baudouin con respecto a seguir lo que se discute en la lista;  estoy al tanto de lo que se discute aunque poco he podido hacer en función de la brecha que impone el idioma, así y todo estoy todos los días intentando poner mi ingles lo mejor posible para poder intervenir más. > Saludos cordiales > Sergio Salinas Porto > Internauta A rgentina > Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet > http://www.internauta.org.ar > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 datos-personales.org Sat Jan 16 20:31:39 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:31:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society re IGF In-Reply-To: <4B51CBC7.80206@itforchange.net> References: <4B4EF6B9.7050709@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AB1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AB2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4B51CBC7.80206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <7DFF917F-2300-45D2-8236-0D190FCE0E80@datos-personales.org> I like your long term vision agenda for IGC, Wolfgang. However, we also need to discuss this IGC statement. We need to influence the process and its outcomes for the February Meeting, and for the overall IGF Meeting towards Vilnus. Jeremy's first draft are necessary to help facilitate and move forward this process. I am submitting my comments in a next email. All the best, Katitza On Jan 16, 2010, at 9:23 AM, Parminder wrote: > Wolfgang > > It is just not that as a new co-chair Jeremy wants to deliver > something. We always make a statement post IGF at feb meeting and > what he is trying he must try as a co-chair. We are already slipping > in making statements when needed, and this is because there is a > certain amount of disengagement by many members who were earlier > active in developing statements. > > Jeremy never said there *was* rough consensus. He only proposed a > rough consensus. Some members were of the view that there should be > para by para discussions. It is for us to do it. The initial draft - > always necessary if things have to roll - is out there. There is > nothing co-chairs can do to trigger para by para discussion. we have > more than three weeks to the open consultation - plenty of time, so > lets work on it. > > I do however agree with you to work towards longer term vision > document, and perhaps meetings around this process. But for the > present lets try to devleop this statement, and also reflect the > situation of civil society in IG arena, specifically IGC, and what > can we do to get it more active for the very important task that it > has. > > Will like to hear your comments on this. Parminder > > > Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi all >> >> McTim is right, there is no "rough consensus". >> >> I did not jump into the discussion because I am very busy these >> days with some other activities, however I follow the debate and >> would warn to move forward too fast. >> >> There is a need for a more fundamental clarification of the whole >> issue and a more strategic re-orientation of the IGC and the role >> of civil society in Internet Governance policy development in the >> coming years. This is part of a broader package of post MAG/IGF, >> post JPA/ICANN and post GAID/UN. What is the role of the IGC in all >> these processes (including the forthcoming ITU pushed WSIS Forum in >> May 2010 and the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in October 2010). >> And what the IGC is doing in other process where Internet >> Governance becomes an issue (ACTA is just one example)? And how the >> IGC positioned itself to new processes in the UN General Assembly >> (with regard to Internet security and governance, pushed by the >> government of Russia in the 2nd committee)? And what we are doing >> in cases like Google vs. China? >> >> Before we make hasty statements on the future of the IGF, probably >> we should start to discuss a more strategic vision paper on "Civil >> Society and Internet Governance 2015". If we have something like >> this until the IGF in Vilnjus this would be great. We could have an >> extra one day pre-conference of the IGC to invite also other >> stakeholders and we could organize one or two workshops around this >> strategic re-orientation within the IGF 2010 programme. >> >> Jeremy, I understand that as a new co-chair you want to "deliver" >> something, but sometimes it is better for a chair just to enable >> the members of the group to exchange their views, to stimulare >> their thinking and to moderate a bottom up opinion building >> process. Strong leadership includes also the capacity to listen, to >> ask questions (not to give quick answers) and to steer the process >> from behind, where needed. >> >> Best regards >> >> 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 katitza at datos-personales.org Sat Jan 16 21:23:16 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:23:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B51737A.60605@itforchange.net> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B51737A.60605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, all: Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I understand that there will be a MAG+ meeting after the February consultation. The next meetings will be similar to the September meeting, where MAG and non-MAG members were in charge of organizing the panels. Last year the process of the selection of speakers well not known until the end, nor we really have a truly discussion about the format with the overall MAG in a way that we can achieve consensus. We do many things in the last minutes. This year, we can be ready to build upon the MAG+. For example, we should propose to discuss the process of how the MAG+ meeting will work during the open consultations in February, if any. Which will be the role of the MAG? How the decisions will be taken? Review what it works and how it can be improved. For example, we can argue that if, during the MAG+ meeting, we find a different consensus on how the format should work in a specific session, we should be able to make a decision and carry out that proposal. In other words, make substantive decisions, if it is needed. The question is How"? May be, everyone should be in the room. The MAG can make decisions. Finally, we need to have more alternative to this. These are just some thoughts. All the best, Katitza On Jan 16, 2010, at 3:06 AM, Parminder wrote: > Jeanette > > I am separately taking up here some issues of fact related to our > discussion. > > You know that the September meeting, last year, was held under > some special and a bit strange circumstances. It was designated > as not a MAG meeting but just a planning meeting. I understand > that you realise the implications of this which were vaguely > stated in the May MAG meeting - that since it was not a MAG meeting > it can only do superficial programmatic stuff and nothing more > substantial. It could not amend anything on the program document > already written by the MAG, or even add anything substantial. This > would hold even if everyone present in the meeting room agreed to > something, it simply was not possible to do it. (We were very active > on human rights agenda late last year, but the closing/ locking of > the program document made it impossible to do any real stuff on it > anymore after May, even if there were political mass to do it.) Do > you think such openness and increased participation is of much real > meaning? Is it not much much better if there is more openness and > greater participation while somebody with some substantive authority > is also there to take notice of what all the increased participation > really contributes. To be more specific, is it not much better if > the authority of the representative multistakeholder group MAG is > still open and alive at these meetings to be able to make any > real substantive change/ additions etc to the program document? > > (On a more academic note, I have seen fewer real cases of such > dramatic contradiction between formal and substantive participation > as this!) > > So questions like > > >The question is whether or not the MAG needs to be an exclusive > club. You attended the meeting last September. >It did work well, > didn't it? > > are not as simple and obvious as they look on the surface. Yes, I > want greater non-MAG participation as IGF program is fleshed out > (and that in any case happened even in 2008 when Sept meeting was > a real MAG meeting) but I do not want a very sketchy IGF agenda and > program (so broad as to be largely meaningless) which also is locked > up early in the year (as per the present proposal of no MAG meeting > post Feb, in Feb itself) with no possibilities of any real > substantive input after that. Do you want that? Thats what the > present proposal will do. > > Parminder > > > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> Hi Parminder, >> >> >> Parminder wrote: >>> Hi Jeanette, >>> >>> The proposal continues to bother me a lot in its possible wider >>> ramifications. So excuse me to seek some clarifications, and >>> engage in a bit of debate on the issue. >> >> I have no problem with that, on the contrary. >> >>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> we discussed some of the implications you mention below. >>>> >>>> This year's meetings following the February meeting could be >>>> regarded as an experiment to find out if a MAG is needed at all. >>> But why this experiment and not many others that could be >>> attempted. Like MAG taking a more pro-active role of doing more >>> inter-sessional work, preparing background papers etc - stuff >>> which has been a part of many a proposals for IGF evolution, >>> including from the IGC. I think this thing being done in the name >>> of an experiment can be very pre-emptive. >>> >>>> Perhaps open planning meetings such as the one we had in >>>> September 2009 are sufficient for setting the agenda; perhaps the >>>> need for some sort of steering committee does arise, perhaps not. >> >>> The view that the MAG does and should only do the narrow work of >>> setting a very broad agenda >> >> You are linking two things that seem to me indirectly connected: >> the task(s) of the MAG and the selection of its membership. The >> idea to open the MAG for its two meetings in May and June seemed a >> good idea as it catches 2 birds with one stone. This way, we >> increase the transparency of the MAG's work and we avoid the >> rotation process in the face of an uncertain future. Everybody can >> join and help organize the next meeting. Hence, opening up the >> meeting shouldn't have an impact on the MAG's agenda or tasks. >> >> presupposes that only one part of the WSIS mandate >>> for the IGF - acting as a policy discussion space (and that too in >>> a largely unstructured way) - is relevant and should ever be >>> attempted. This is what I mean by saying that the 'experiment' is >>> pre-emptive. Without MAG - in fact ,without a MAG that takes up a >>> larger set of goals and activities - these other parts of the IGF >>> mandate can just not begun to be addressed. >> >> After 4 years of MAG I would say that the interpretation of the >> MAG's responsibilities depends to some degree on its (rotating) >> membership. I can well imagine that the MAG or any other future >> advisory group might consider taking over other tasks. If I >> understand you correctly, Parminder, you imply that only a formally >> constituted group with a exlusive membership could take over >> broader responsibilities? If so, I havn't thought about this enough >> to agree or disagree with you on this. >> >> >>>> >>>> Since it is unclear whether after 2010 there will be a new >>>> mandate for an IGF and if so, whether the new IGF will continue >>>> to have a secretariat and a non-bureau like preparatory >>>> structure, this year's preparation seems to be a good opportunity >>>> to experiment with processes that are more open and transparent >>>> and less burdensome. >>> Burdensome! Well that depends on what we look to the IGF to >>> achieve. and it is well known that there are very different views >>> on this subject. So why a certain view at one end of the spectrum >>> is made to look like the obvious and natural one, and processes >>> being described as burdensome or not in relation to that view of >>> the IGF's objective. >>> >>> Any serious difficult work can look burdensome. Helping along >>> global policy making can look burdensome, but to others it may be >>> immensely necessary, and also mandated by the WSIS. IGC has often >>> sought that IGF/MAG does inter-sessional work, form WGs, develop >>> background material, make more specific agenda with specific >>> questions of policy (IRP dynamic coalition's recent statement too >>> seeks this)... any of this may look burdensome, but still be very >>> necessary to evolve towards. What happens to all those demands of >>> the IGC and many others? Why cant we do some experiment towards >>> this direction rather than in the opposite direction to it? >> >> I remember that we have discussed this issue before. I also >> remember that I disagreed with your view on the current state of >> things. In my view, the regional IGFs are evolving into a bottom-up >> process of inter-sessional meetings. The fact that they are >> geographically organized doesn't mean that there is no link between >> them. What I like about these regional efforts is that they were >> not centrally organized but emerged from local initiatives. I think >> this is a much better way of creating a dense network of IGF >> related processes and structures than to empower a body such as >> the MAG to do so. >> >>>> The annual rotation does involve a lot of work for both the >>>> secretariat and all stakeholder groups. >> >>> Now, I dont see why simply extending the term of the old MAG does >>> not solve that problem. >> >> As I said on the MAG list, I would find it unacceptable if the MAG >> simply extended its term without asking those who nominated the >> present members in the first place. The little reaction on the MAG >> list suggests that not many members share this point of view. I'd >> assume that the caucus would have loudly protested if we had just >> announced that we wouldn't rotate this year but just serve another >> term. Rightly so in my opinion. >> >> >> Why should it entail an experiment to see if MAG is >>> at all necessary or not. >> >> The question is whether or not the MAG needs to be an exclusive >> club. You attended the meeting last September. It did work well, >> didn't it? >> >> >>> So, the 'do we even need a MAG' experiment seems to not have much >>> to do with the rotation issue, does it. >> >> It does also reflect the open meeting in September. It is good to >> get those who organize workshops and main session fully and early >> involved. >> >> I leave at that. I think others should chip in as well. >> >> jeanette >>> >>> Second is the wrapping up of this issue in the very tempting cover >>> of more openness. (As an aside I may mention that many who seem to >>> support the no-MAG experiment did not support the proposal that >>> the discussion list of MAG be public, which is a contradiction >>> if the most pressing objective here may just be 'openness'.) >>> Greater openness and even participation is a very different >>> issue than doing away with a representative body, which may be >>> required to accomplish many task that cannot be done by 'open >>> houses'. We all know there are many such tasks, some of them >>> stated above as expectations expressed by the IGC from the IGF >>> process. >>> >>> So if we indeed want to explore experiments and people's views and >>> where to move forward from here, we can as well be posing >>> questions like >>> >>> "Do you think IGF should accomplish certain objectives, beyond >>> what it may be achieving at present? If so. will it require a more >>> structured IGF, with an active core representative >>> multistakeholder group steering it?" >>> And in the spirit of these questions experiment with a few >>> different activities and ways of work in the MAG, instead of a do- >>> we-need-a-MAG-at-all experiment. >>> >>> Parminder >>>> >>>> jeanette >>>> >>>> Parminder wrote: >>>>> Hi All >>>>> >>>>> I just now posted the following message to the IGF MAG list. >>>>> More openness is always welcome but there are also some larger >>>>> structural questions about the mandate and efficacy of the IGF >>>>> which worry me since the proposal of 'only open meetings' has >>>>> been made in connection with the need or not of renewing the >>>>> MAG. I will posit these larger questions a little later while I >>>>> share my mentioned email. Parminder >>>>> >>>>> (Disclosure: I am some kind of a member of the MAG system and am >>>>> funded for attending its meeting. However, to be fair to me, I >>>>> was also funded to attend the planning meeting in Sept which was >>>>> *not* a MAG meeting.) >>>>> >>>>> Dear Markus and others, >>>>> >>>>> A couple of questions come to my mind regarding the new proposal >>>>> which could merit some discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Does this mean that there will be no MAG post Feb? (I understand >>>>> that MAG could exist while there be only open planning meeting >>>>> as in Sept last.) >>>>> >>>>> If so, have we looked at all the implication - tangible and >>>>> intangible - of there being no MAG in existence for a whole year >>>>> in the run-up to an IGF meeting, and during the meeting? >>>>> >>>>> Does this in fact suggest that we could anyway more or less do >>>>> without a MAG, and a couple of open preparatory/ planning >>>>> meetings in Geneva, outcomes of which are culled/interpreted by >>>>> the secretariat, is all that is needed to hold the IGF and >>>>> comply with the WSIS requirements? >>>>> >>>>> Does trying out this practice in the year of possible structural >>>>> changes to the IGF - possibly taken up along with its renewal if >>>>> it comes - can have even more special significance? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks and best regards >>>>> >>>>> Parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> the MAG started discussing the issue of rotation for this year. >>>>>> Some people were in favor of an extended term for the present >>>>>> membership because it is not clear if the IGF's mandate will be >>>>>> extended and, should it be extended, under what terms. It could >>>>>> be that the MAG meeting in May would be the only one for the >>>>>> new MAG. >>>>>> >>>>>> I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on >>>>>> this matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. >>>>>> This afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came >>>>>> up with a third solution. Markus just sent the following >>>>>> message to the MAG list and asked me to forward it to the >>>>>> caucus list as well. I expect the caucus will be happy about >>>>>> the proposed solution? >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeanette has got a point! It might not go down well if any >>>>>> decision were taken in this matter without consulting the >>>>>> broader community! However, as there is a distinct possibility >>>>>> that a renewed MAG will hold one meeting only, there is also a >>>>>> strong argument against launching the heavy rotation machinery >>>>>> just for the sake of this principle. >>>>>> >>>>>> I consulted with Jeanette and going through the pros and cons >>>>>> of both approaches we both came to the conclusion that there >>>>>> might be a third way. We both wondered whether there was any >>>>>> need for a closed meeting at all in May. As last September's >>>>>> planning meeting went rather well, we wondered whether we could >>>>>> not prepare most of this year's meeting in an open process. By >>>>>> doing so, we would also take into account the calls for more >>>>>> inclusiveness and transparency made during the consultation in >>>>>> Sharm. >>>>>> >>>>>> The MAG would thus meet a last time next month and set the >>>>>> agenda for the Vilnius meeting. The programme could be fleshed >>>>>> out in two open planning meetings in May and June. >>>>>> >>>>>> This could also be an experiment in view of a possible renewal >>>>>> of the mandate. Should the mandate be renewed, any decision on >>>>>> how to continue could be taken in light of this experiment. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please let me know what you think about this possible approach. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards >>>>>> Markus >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> >>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Sat Jan 16 23:48:40 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 07:48:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: Para one Message-ID: Here is my attempt to incorporate Siva's comment (which I agree with in part) on para one: The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. However if, as we expect, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe could be made, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution. While we believe it will remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), we have no objection to the notion of an IGF independent of the UN system. Comments? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the > IGF > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of > the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related > public policy issues.  However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be > extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we > believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of > incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006.  None of these > suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus for > example, we believe it should remain formally convened by the UN Secretary > General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with > the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition > of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder > groups, rather than being slanted towards particular stakeholder groups as > it is at present.  Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a > more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions > should be more transparent - for example, perhaps it could revisit the idea > of a second, open mailing list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss > their operations publicly. > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of > stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating to the > IGF's structure and processes.  Many of the IGC's members believe that the > MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, ought to > exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions about the > future structure and processes of the IGF. > A second aspect in which there is room for further improvement in the > accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive > agenda of IGF meetings.  Although at present this responsibility falls to > the MAG, the IGC was surprised that for instance the very strongly and > widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the > importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the > agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. > The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation towards > the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to > recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members > would support outputs of such kinds).  Whatever form its outputs take, > efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant > external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through publications on > the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. > Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to maximise > its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program, > rather than being limited to a single annual meeting.  Many of our members > believe that this should include the development of an ongoing work program > for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and > intersessional and regional meetings. > Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can be > left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working > groups).  In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better > mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the > IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent > standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, > and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which > reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil > society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation.  We > look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in > the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > About the IGC > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are actively > engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the > World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote > global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It > now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who > have subscribed to its Charter.  More about our coalition can be found at > http://www.igcaucus.org. > > -- > > 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 katitza at datos-personales.org Sun Jan 17 00:19:15 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:19:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: Para one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38620035-385B-424A-9C31-9E26E14846FF@datos-personales.org> Mc Tim: I opposed to the following statement: On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:48 PM, McTim wrote: > we have no > objection to the notion of an IGF independent of the UN system. We are working here towards upholding human rights on the Internet. The UN charter commits the United Nations and all Member States to action promoting "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms" (art. 55 / inc. c)). This is the second time I heard this argument. I look forward to hear your opinion (and other opinions) on these topic All the best, Katitza ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 17 00:22:34 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:22:34 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: Para one In-Reply-To: <38620035-385B-424A-9C31-9E26E14846FF@datos-personales.org> References: <38620035-385B-424A-9C31-9E26E14846FF@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: Hi, On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Mc Tim: > > I opposed to the following statement: > > On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:48 PM, McTim wrote: > >>  we have no >> objection to the notion of an IGF independent of the UN system. > > > We are working here towards upholding human rights on the Internet. The UN > charter commits the United Nations and all Member States to action promoting > "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental > freedoms" (art. 55 / inc. c)). > > This is the second time I heard this argument. > > I look forward to hear your opinion (and other opinions) on these topic My rationale is that IF (and its a big if indeed) the mandate of the IGF is not renewed by the UN, it gives us as CS the option to carry on the IGF ourselves as a CS organisation. My formulation was keeping Sivas position in mind (as well as mine and I think others). Are you opposed to this possibility if the mandate is not renewed? -- 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 datos-personales.org Sun Jan 17 00:38:15 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:38:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: Para one In-Reply-To: References: <38620035-385B-424A-9C31-9E26E14846FF@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <1A80801B-F0C4-4672-A0BC-2686D487DF40@datos-personales.org> Mc Tim, Thanks for your quick answer. I would like to hear other opinions on this topic, specially from those who follow the United Nations discussions more closely. My "first reaction" will be: To move the discussion inside the UN systems, instead to create an independent space - even if the status of this space will be a "non for profit status" As I mentioned, this is the second time I heard this opinion so I look forward to hear other views. I might miss Shiva's email. Will get back to his email later. all the best, Katitza On Jan 17, 2010, at 12:22 AM, McTim wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Katitza Rodriguez > wrote: >> Mc Tim: >> >> I opposed to the following statement: >> >> On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:48 PM, McTim wrote: >> >>> we have no >>> objection to the notion of an IGF independent of the UN system. >> >> >> We are working here towards upholding human rights on the Internet. >> The UN >> charter commits the United Nations and all Member States to action >> promoting >> "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and >> fundamental >> freedoms" (art. 55 / inc. c)). >> >> This is the second time I heard this argument. >> >> I look forward to hear your opinion (and other opinions) on these >> topic > > My rationale is that IF (and its a big if indeed) the mandate of the > IGF is not renewed by the UN, it gives us as CS the option to carry on > the IGF ourselves as a CS organisation. My formulation was keeping > Sivas position in mind (as well as mine and I think others). > > Are you opposed to this possibility if the mandate is not renewed? > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jan 17 00:34:44 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:34:44 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statement Para 2 REVISION 2.x Message-ID: The below revised para takes Siva and Ians comments into account, as well as the attached analysis. My spreadsheet shows that governmental stakeholders have 40% of MAG seats, While the PS has only 10%. If we are going to argue that the membership is slanted, lets call it like it is. While some may not be enthusiastic asking for greater PS representation, the numbers are fairly clear. My spreadsheet admittedly is a quick n dirty job, comments/further analysis welcome. "One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards governmental stakeholders as it is at present. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent." -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition > of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder > groups, rather than being slanted towards particular stakeholder groups as > it is at present.  Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a > more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions > should be more transparent - for example, perhaps it could revisit the idea > of a second, open mailing list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss > their operations publicly. > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of > stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating to the > IGF's structure and processes.  Many of the IGC's members believe that the > MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, ought to > exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions about the > future structure and processes of the IGF. > A second aspect in which there is room for further improvement in the > accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive > agenda of IGF meetings.  Although at present this responsibility falls to > the MAG, the IGC was surprised that for instance the very strongly and > widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the > importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the > agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. > The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation towards > the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to > recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members > would support outputs of such kinds).  Whatever form its outputs take, > efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant > external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through publications on > the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. > Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to maximise > its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program, > rather than being limited to a single annual meeting.  Many of our members > believe that this should include the development of an ongoing work program > for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and > intersessional and regional meetings. > Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can be > left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working > groups).  In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better > mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the > IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent > standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, > and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which > reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil > society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation.  We > look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in > the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > About the IGC > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are actively > engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the > World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote > global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It > now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who > have subscribed to its Charter.  More about our coalition can be found at > http://www.igcaucus.org. > > -- > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: analysis of MAG membership.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 37376 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 17 00:25:34 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:55:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B51FBC2.7020407@wzb.eu> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B516ABC.1080708@itforchange.net> <4B51FBC2.7020407@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B529F4E.1090200@itforchange.net> Jeanette, Not at all to intrude on your weekend, so please respond to this, if you will, on Monday. However, I will keep this discussion up because in my view it hides much deeper implication then appear obvious. I continue to confused both by your messages and the emails in the MAG list as to why a distinction is not being made between ''repeating the last Sept planning meeting experiment' and holding 'a MAG + meeting'. They are different, and we must discuss this specific point. I am all for MAG plus meetings, and my second email to yesterday made it clear. However, and i also analyzed that, last Sept planning meeting was pointedly a non-MAG meeting - it was *just* a planning meeting (a new term and format was coined). Now this non MAG meeting, I repeat, had no authority to do anything with the program document already written up, while in all earlier years even up to the Sept meeting program documents could be fine-tuned or even amended. This is the crucial difference. Now, I could have taken that this is just a confusion, and your new proposal always meant real MAG+ meetings in May and June 2010. However, you keep saying that this experiment came out of very pragmatic considerations of problems associated with extending the present MAG's tenure. To quote your email >Your question seems to imply that we wanted to be experimental and made a choice of experimental >options. This is not the case. The experiment was born out of a specific problem: a full rotation circle for >one or at best two meetings this year seemed a lot of work, yet simply extending the term of the current >members would most likely evoked criticism. This to me clearly implies that in proposing what you and Markus describe as the 'third way' and I describe as a drastic experiment, MAG will *not* be renewed after the term of the present MAG ends after the Feb meeting. That is presented as the only reason for trying this 'experiment' or third way. So there will be *no* MAG post Feb. This obviously means the May and June meetings will not be MAG plus but open houses, like existing open consultations. This also corresponds to the fact that Sept 2009 meeting was not a MAG (or MAG+) meeting, and you do keep referring to the repeating of 'Sept 2009 experiment'. If I am not right in this deduction please correct me. If MAG doesn't sit after Feb, what we will have a very sketchy and broad themes, and most likely little or no change in the structure/format, for IGF - 5, and that would be final. Nothing can change after that, because what is written by MAG can only be changed by MAG (this was kind of said by the chair during last May meeting). In all the earlier years, both substance and structure of IGF was discussed throughly till almost the end, which gave opportunity for more elaborate themes and structural evolutions. This wont be possible this time. That is *the* main issue. And IGC and other CS groups (APC, IRP-DC etc) have been calling for both more specific and elaborated themes and questions and structural evolutions for the next IGF. So how does the new proposal serve our interests is completely unclear to me. But if the MAG will be preserved after Feb, by just extending the tenure of the present MAG I dont see what problem has been solved by this 'third way' or experiment. If the proposal is just to have real MAG+ meetings in May and June, why do we say we are repeating Sept 2009 experiment which was not a MAG plus meeting, but simply a planning meeting. To repeat, for it to be MAG or MAG plus meeting the MAG's authority to make substantive changes to the program document should be 'alive and existing' at the time of the meeting, and possible to be exercised. Sorry if these are too many questions, but I really confused. Ok, my one specific question, that remained unanswered in the MAG list, is - will there be any MAG at all after Feb this year or not, as per the present proposal? What do you know about it? Parminder Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > > > >> My first task will be to emphatically restate my position on openness >> and participative-ness, > > I have never had any doubt about your position on openness in general > and I do understand that your issue is with forms and implications of > openness. > > >> So while we seek more openness, we do look with considerable >> suspicion at 'openness' which may, or even be designed in order to, >> make the substantial evaporate. > > I hope you don't mean to accuse me of setting up something to make > substance evaporate. > > >> Meanwhile allow me to discuss an entirely different issue - the >> radical 'do-we-even-need-a-MAG' experiment. While I myself saw this >> proposal as possibly clearing the way for the new structural >> possibility of no MAG or a greatly weakened MAG, you yourself >> confirmed that, in your words >> >> "This year's meetings following the February meeting could be >> regarded as an experiment to find out if a MAG is needed at all." >> >> >> You would agree that this is a rather drastic experiment. > > I would say it is not clear right now whether or not this is going to > be a drastic experiment. Opening up some or all MAG meetings might not > change that much after all. It is certainly not meant to be a drastic > experiment, it builds on the experience of the open planning meeting > in September. You say in your other email that its background was a > bit odd. True, but I would say that except for the "breakout groups" > we formed around the main session topics not much was different from > an ordinary MAG meeting. The closer to the actual IGF meeting, the > more operational the MAG meetings have been over the last years. My > guess is that even without this experiment to open MAG meetings, we > would have considered an open planning meeting for all workshop > organizers before the next IGF. > > Who chose to >> try this experiment (and why) rather than, and I repeat, other >> experiments more in keeping with IGC's earlier position to seek >> outcomes from MAG/ IGF system like background material/ papers on key >> themes for the IGF, greater specificity of key policy issues to be >> taken up, inter-sessional thematic work etc. > > My answer to your question is super pragmatic and won't satisfy you. > Your question seems to imply that we wanted to be experimental and > made a choice of experimental options. This is not the case. The > experiment was born out of a specific problem: a full rotation circle > for one or at best two meetings this year seemed a lot of work, yet > simply extending the term of the current members would most likely > evoked criticism. > > > (if you want I can flesh out how such >> experiments can be tried.) To propose this experiment over others, > > This experiment is not privileged over others. I repeat, we didn't > choose among various experiments. On the other hand, I don't expect > this to be the last experiment of incremental change we'll see should > the IGF get a new mandate. On the contrary, so far I think the IGF > has been almost constantly changing, and I do hope that this spirit of > trying out structures and procedures will be maintained. I am also > optimistic that we will or would see changes with regard to outcomes. > It might start with more semantic artifices than substantive outcomes > but even this would be open to change. It seems crucial to avoid > accelerating such developments because skeptics need to be convinced > as well. > > > I beg >> to state, is an ideological position on one end of a large spectrum >> of views on what IGF should do. And, putting into effect this >> experiment would serve to preempt movement towards these greater >> possibilities, which in the view of many people are needed to be >> explored in order to meet the full mandate of the IGF. > > I beg to differ. First, if many people think it was a bad idea to open > MAG meetings, a new MAG can be formed under the new mandate. Second, I > am not convinced that the political weight and responsibility of the > MAG depends solely or mainly on the question of openness. The crucial > question in my view is whether or not stakeholders bring their issues > to the IGF and accept it as a venue for fleshing out practical > solutions. (I understand Fouad's email as a request to discuss how > such a goal can be achieved.) > > The more political relevant the IGF, the more relevant are the > preparatory meetings and vice versa. The MAG per se is not important > and, I think, cannot simply be declared to gain importance. > > My guess is that we have very different opinions on the MAG's sources > of authority and relevance. For me, the MAG, open or closed, can only > do substantive things if there is a broad consensus "out there" among > the stakeholders that more substance would a good thing. The formal > rules and structures of the MAG pale in comparison. > > And now I plan to have a weekend :-) > > jeanette > > >> >> >If I understand you correctly, Parminder, you imply that only a >> formally constituted group with a exlusive >membership could take >> over broader responsibilities? If so, I havn't thought about this >> enough to agree or >disagree with you on this. >> >> Yes, I think only a formally constituted group, but with strong >> processes of openness and participation, can take up these broader >> responsibilities. As for doing our thinking on this, I must say that >> we need to do it now, and before we suggest structural experiments of >> the kind do-we-need-a-MAG. Obviously, thinking about what we expect a >> system to achieve, and how, should come before we meddle with its >> structure. This is the reason that I proposed that a particular kind >> of structural meddling/ change/ experiment presupposes a certain view >> of IGF's purpose and possibilities, whether we hold it consciously or >> not. And this view of IGF's purpose in my opinion is very one-sided. >> >> Do you really think that an open house (if the do-we-need-MAG >> experiment succeeds, on whatever basis success is construed, that is >> all we will be left with) can really do the following tasks - >> >> * Do intensive discussion/ negotiation to come up with specific >> policy questions for IGF's consideration (As IRP DC statement >> seeks and IGC has also sought in the past) >> * Do elaborate linking and structuring of main sessions and >> workshops to get the best synergies out (again roughly from IRP DC >> statement, but also from IGC's earlier statements) >> * Discuss/ negotiate specific sub themes and discussion areas, for >> themes like CIR and openness which are politically volatile in >> order to have meaningful progress in these vital areas >> * Select panelists >> * Interact with other policy institutions (as per WSIS mandate) >> * Come up with background material on some themes, syntheisize some >> kind of outcomes of some IGF processes etc - things which IGC have >> called for earlier , and also needed to fulfill WSIS mandate of >> giving advice/ recommendations >> * There are many other things to possibly do for a group with clear >> membership and not an 'open house', like suggested by Charity vis >> a vis remote participation, but I will stop here. >> >> >> Do we realize that if a broadly representative mutlistakeholder group >> like the MAG did not do all this, who will really end up doing it and >> taking the decisions. Would that eventuality enhance openness and >> participation, or greatly curtail it? Can we suggest -do-we-need-MAG >> kind of experiments, nay actually take them up, without consideration >> to these basic issues? >> >> >> parminder >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> Hi Parminder, >>> >>> >>> Parminder wrote: >>>> Hi Jeanette, >>>> >>>> The proposal continues to bother me a lot in its possible wider >>>> ramifications. So excuse me to seek some clarifications, and engage >>>> in a bit of debate on the issue. >>> >>> I have no problem with that, on the contrary. >>> >>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> we discussed some of the implications you mention below. >>>>> >>>>> This year's meetings following the February meeting could be >>>>> regarded as an experiment to find out if a MAG is needed at all. >>>> But why this experiment and not many others that could be >>>> attempted. Like MAG taking a more pro-active role of doing more >>>> inter-sessional work, preparing background papers etc - stuff which >>>> has been a part of many a proposals for IGF evolution, including >>>> from the IGC. I think this thing being done in the name of an >>>> experiment can be very pre-emptive. >>>> >>>>> Perhaps open planning meetings such as the one we had in September >>>>> 2009 are sufficient for setting the agenda; perhaps the need for >>>>> some sort of steering committee does arise, perhaps not. >>> >>>> The view that the MAG does and should only do the narrow work of >>>> setting a very broad agenda >>> >>> You are linking two things that seem to me indirectly connected: the >>> task(s) of the MAG and the selection of its membership. The idea to >>> open the MAG for its two meetings in May and June seemed a good idea >>> as it catches 2 birds with one stone. This way, we increase the >>> transparency of the MAG's work and we avoid the rotation process in >>> the face of an uncertain future. Everybody can join and help >>> organize the next meeting. Hence, opening up the meeting shouldn't >>> have an impact on the MAG's agenda or tasks. >>> >>> presupposes that only one part of the WSIS mandate >>>> for the IGF - acting as a policy discussion space (and that too in >>>> a largely unstructured way) - is relevant and should ever be >>>> attempted. This is what I mean by saying that the 'experiment' is >>>> pre-emptive. Without MAG - in fact ,without a MAG that takes up a >>>> larger set of goals and activities - these other parts of the IGF >>>> mandate can just not begun to be addressed. >>> >>> After 4 years of MAG I would say that the interpretation of the >>> MAG's responsibilities depends to some degree on its (rotating) >>> membership. I can well imagine that the MAG or any other future >>> advisory group might consider taking over other tasks. If I >>> understand you correctly, Parminder, you imply that only a formally >>> constituted group with a exlusive membership could take over broader >>> responsibilities? If so, I havn't thought about this enough to agree >>> or disagree with you on this. >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> Since it is unclear whether after 2010 there will be a new mandate >>>>> for an IGF and if so, whether the new IGF will continue to have a >>>>> secretariat and a non-bureau like preparatory structure, this >>>>> year's preparation seems to be a good opportunity to experiment >>>>> with processes that are more open and transparent and less >>>>> burdensome. >>>> Burdensome! Well that depends on what we look to the IGF to >>>> achieve. and it is well known that there are very different views >>>> on this subject. So why a certain view at one end of the spectrum >>>> is made to look like the obvious and natural one, and processes >>>> being described as burdensome or not in relation to that view of >>>> the IGF's objective. >>>> >>>> Any serious difficult work can look burdensome. Helping along >>>> global policy making can look burdensome, but to others it may be >>>> immensely necessary, and also mandated by the WSIS. IGC has often >>>> sought that IGF/MAG does inter-sessional work, form WGs, develop >>>> background material, make more specific agenda with specific >>>> questions of policy (IRP dynamic coalition's recent statement too >>>> seeks this)... any of this may look burdensome, but still be very >>>> necessary to evolve towards. What happens to all those demands of >>>> the IGC and many others? Why cant we do some experiment towards >>>> this direction rather than in the opposite direction to it? >>> >>> I remember that we have discussed this issue before. I also remember >>> that I disagreed with your view on the current state of things. In >>> my view, the regional IGFs are evolving into a bottom-up process of >>> inter-sessional meetings. The fact that they are geographically >>> organized doesn't mean that there is no link between them. What I >>> like about these regional efforts is that they were not centrally >>> organized but emerged from local initiatives. I think this is a much >>> better way of creating a dense network of IGF related processes and >>> structures than to empower a body such as the MAG to do so. >>> >>>>> The annual rotation does involve a lot of work for both the >>>>> secretariat and all stakeholder groups. >>> >>>> Now, I dont see why simply extending the term of the old MAG does >>>> not solve that problem. >>> >>> As I said on the MAG list, I would find it unacceptable if the MAG >>> simply extended its term without asking those who nominated the >>> present members in the first place. The little reaction on the MAG >>> list suggests that not many members share this point of view. I'd >>> assume that the caucus would have loudly protested if we had just >>> announced that we wouldn't rotate this year but just serve another >>> term. Rightly so in my opinion. >>> >>> >>> Why should it entail an experiment to see if MAG is >>>> at all necessary or not. >>> >>> The question is whether or not the MAG needs to be an exclusive >>> club. You attended the meeting last September. It did work well, >>> didn't it? >>> >>> >>>> So, the 'do we even need a MAG' experiment seems to not have much >>>> to do with the rotation issue, does it. >>> >>> It does also reflect the open meeting in September. It is good to >>> get those who organize workshops and main session fully and early >>> involved. >>> >>> I leave at that. I think others should chip in as well. >>> >>> jeanette >>>> >>>> Second is the wrapping up of this issue in the very tempting cover >>>> of more openness. (As an aside I may mention that many who seem to >>>> support the no-MAG experiment did not support the proposal that >>>> the discussion list of MAG be public, which is a contradiction >>>> if the most pressing objective here may just be 'openness'.) >>>> Greater openness and even participation is a very different >>>> issue than doing away with a representative body, which may be >>>> required to accomplish many task that cannot be done by 'open >>>> houses'. We all know there are many such tasks, some of them stated >>>> above as expectations expressed by the IGC from the IGF process. >>>> >>>> So if we indeed want to explore experiments and people's views and >>>> where to move forward from here, we can as well be posing >>>> questions like >>>> >>>> "Do you think IGF should accomplish certain objectives, beyond what >>>> it may be achieving at present? If so. will it require a more >>>> structured IGF, with an active core representative multistakeholder >>>> group steering it?" >>>> And in the spirit of these questions experiment with a few >>>> different activities and ways of work in the MAG, instead of a >>>> do-we-need-a-MAG-at-all experiment. >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>>> >>>>> jeanette >>>>> >>>>> Parminder wrote: >>>>>> Hi All >>>>>> >>>>>> I just now posted the following message to the IGF MAG list. More >>>>>> openness is always welcome but there are also some larger >>>>>> structural questions about the mandate and efficacy of the IGF >>>>>> which worry me since the proposal of 'only open meetings' has >>>>>> been made in connection with the need or not of renewing the MAG. >>>>>> I will posit these larger questions a little later while I share >>>>>> my mentioned email. Parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> (Disclosure: I am some kind of a member of the MAG system and am >>>>>> funded for attending its meeting. However, to be fair to me, I >>>>>> was also funded to attend the planning meeting in Sept which was >>>>>> *not* a MAG meeting.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Markus and others, >>>>>> >>>>>> A couple of questions come to my mind regarding the new proposal >>>>>> which could merit some discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does this mean that there will be no MAG post Feb? (I understand >>>>>> that MAG could exist while there be only open planning meeting >>>>>> as in Sept last.) >>>>>> >>>>>> If so, have we looked at all the implication - tangible and >>>>>> intangible - of there being no MAG in existence for a whole year >>>>>> in the run-up to an IGF meeting, and during the meeting? >>>>>> >>>>>> Does this in fact suggest that we could anyway more or less do >>>>>> without a MAG, and a couple of open preparatory/ planning >>>>>> meetings in Geneva, outcomes of which are culled/interpreted by >>>>>> the secretariat, is all that is needed to hold the IGF and comply >>>>>> with the WSIS requirements? >>>>>> >>>>>> Does trying out this practice in the year of possible structural >>>>>> changes to the IGF - possibly taken up along with its renewal if >>>>>> it comes - can have even more special significance? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks and best regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the MAG started discussing the issue of rotation for this year. >>>>>>> Some people were in favor of an extended term for the present >>>>>>> membership because it is not clear if the IGF's mandate will be >>>>>>> extended and, should it be extended, under what terms. It could >>>>>>> be that the MAG meeting in May would be the only one for the new >>>>>>> MAG. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on >>>>>>> this matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. >>>>>>> This afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came >>>>>>> up with a third solution. Markus just sent the following message >>>>>>> to the MAG list and asked me to forward it to the caucus list as >>>>>>> well. I expect the caucus will be happy about the proposed >>>>>>> solution? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jeanette has got a point! It might not go down well if any >>>>>>> decision were taken in this matter without consulting the >>>>>>> broader community! However, as there is a distinct possibility >>>>>>> that a renewed MAG will hold one meeting only, there is also a >>>>>>> strong argument against launching the heavy rotation machinery >>>>>>> just for the sake of this principle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I consulted with Jeanette and going through the pros and cons of >>>>>>> both approaches we both came to the conclusion that there might >>>>>>> be a third way. We both wondered whether there was any need for >>>>>>> a closed meeting at all in May. As last September's planning >>>>>>> meeting went rather well, we wondered whether we could not >>>>>>> prepare most of this year's meeting in an open process. By doing >>>>>>> so, we would also take into account the calls for more >>>>>>> inclusiveness and transparency made during the consultation in >>>>>>> Sharm. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The MAG would thus meet a last time next month and set the >>>>>>> agenda for the Vilnius meeting. The programme could be fleshed >>>>>>> out in two open planning meetings in May and June. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This could also be an experiment in view of a possible renewal >>>>>>> of the mandate. Should the mandate be renewed, any decision on >>>>>>> how to continue could be taken in light of this experiment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please let me know what you think about this possible approach. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>> Markus >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Sun Jan 17 01:06:03 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:36:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B51737A.60605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B52A8CB.9070704@itforchange.net> Katitza, I completely agree with your proposal for exploring how can the MAG work dynamically with a much larger participative group in a manner that there is more openness and participation, yet decision-making capacity is not compromised. This is exactly the way to go. However, in my understanding this is not the background and intent of the proposal on the table, because this will require constituting a MAG post Feb - whether with some new members or just the old one. However, the whole exercise started, as Jeanette says, in order to circumvent problems associated with either of these options of constituting a new MAG. Also, please see my comments in my email to Jeanette on what was the nature of last Sept meeting. It is important to preserve, actually build further, MAG's decision making capacity. It is required even more for all kinds of structural evolutions that IGC and other CS groups have been proposing, and are in fact needed to meet the full mandate of the IGF. (The following is a broad socio-political critique and not directed personally towards anyone. I hope it is considered as legitimate in this group involved with political discussions.) But how it often happens in furthering 'status quoist' politics is as follows: structural changes keep on getting proposed for more and more openness, till a structure is reached whereby it is then convenient to say, well, the structure is so open that it is impossible to take any decisions, which simply serves the status quo and status quoists. This is one way neoliberalism deals with what it sees as the specter of politics. Give masses voice, but deny them structures for political action. And the voices will dissolve in a meaningless cacophony, while giving good release to the masses, which is useful to give to the oppressed especially in the times of all-pervasive new ICTs. After all, they too need to use ICTs for some purpose . I think a new 1984 (Orwell) kind of political satire - though with almost the opposite logic - can be written on the future of masses with lots of voice and no political power (2024 ??). Parminder Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > > Parminder, all: > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I understand that there will be a > MAG+ meeting after the February consultation. The next meetings will > be similar to the September meeting, where MAG and non-MAG members > were in charge of organizing the panels. Last year the process of the > selection of speakers well not known until the end, nor we really have > a truly discussion about the format with the overall MAG in a way that > we can achieve consensus. We do many things in the last minutes. > > This year, we can be ready to build upon the MAG+. For example, we > should propose to discuss the process of how the MAG+ meeting will > work during the open consultations in February, if any. Which will be > the role of the MAG? How the decisions will be taken? Review what it > works and how it can be improved. For example, we can argue that if, > during the MAG+ meeting, we find a different consensus on how the > format should work in a specific session, we should be able to make a > decision and carry out that proposal. In other words, make substantive > decisions, if it is needed. The question is How"? May be, everyone > should be in the room. The MAG can make decisions. > > Finally, we need to have more alternative to this. These are just some > thoughts. > > All the best, Katitza > > > On Jan 16, 2010, at 3:06 AM, Parminder wrote: > >> Jeanette >> >> I am separately taking up here some issues of fact related to our >> discussion. >> >> You know that the September meeting, last year, was held under some >> special and a bit strange circumstances. It was designated as not >> a MAG meeting but just a planning meeting. I understand that you >> realise the implications of this which were vaguely stated in the >> May MAG meeting - that since it was not a MAG meeting it can only do >> superficial programmatic stuff and nothing more substantial. It >> could not amend anything on the program document already written >> by the MAG, or even add anything substantial. This would hold even if >> everyone present in the meeting room agreed to something, it simply >> was not possible to do it. (We were very active on human rights >> agenda late last year, but the closing/ locking of the program >> document made it impossible to do any real stuff on it anymore after >> May, even if there were political mass to do it.) Do you think such >> openness and increased participation is of much real meaning? Is it >> not much much better if there is more openness and greater >> participation while somebody with some substantive authority is also >> there to take notice of what all the increased participation really >> contributes. To be more specific, is it not much better if the >> authority of the representative multistakeholder group MAG is still >> open and alive at these meetings to be able to make any real >> substantive change/ additions etc to the program document? >> >> (On a more academic note, I have seen fewer real cases of such >> dramatic contradiction between formal and substantive participation >> as this!) >> >> So questions like >> >> >The question is whether or not the MAG needs to be an exclusive >> club. You attended the meeting last September. >It did work well, >> didn't it? >> >> are not as simple and obvious as they look on the surface. Yes, I >> want greater non-MAG participation as IGF program is fleshed out >> (and that in any case happened even in 2008 when Sept meeting was >> a real MAG meeting) but I do not want a very sketchy IGF agenda and >> program (so broad as to be largely meaningless) which also is locked >> up early in the year (as per the present proposal of no MAG meeting >> post Feb, in Feb itself) with no possibilities of any real >> substantive input after that. Do you want that? Thats what the >> present proposal will do. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> Hi Parminder, >>> >>> >>> Parminder wrote: >>>> Hi Jeanette, >>>> >>>> The proposal continues to bother me a lot in its possible wider >>>> ramifications. So excuse me to seek some clarifications, and engage >>>> in a bit of debate on the issue. >>> >>> I have no problem with that, on the contrary. >>> >>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> we discussed some of the implications you mention below. >>>>> >>>>> This year's meetings following the February meeting could be >>>>> regarded as an experiment to find out if a MAG is needed at all. >>>> But why this experiment and not many others that could be >>>> attempted. Like MAG taking a more pro-active role of doing more >>>> inter-sessional work, preparing background papers etc - stuff which >>>> has been a part of many a proposals for IGF evolution, including >>>> from the IGC. I think this thing being done in the name of an >>>> experiment can be very pre-emptive. >>>> >>>>> Perhaps open planning meetings such as the one we had in September >>>>> 2009 are sufficient for setting the agenda; perhaps the need for >>>>> some sort of steering committee does arise, perhaps not. >>> >>>> The view that the MAG does and should only do the narrow work of >>>> setting a very broad agenda >>> >>> You are linking two things that seem to me indirectly connected: the >>> task(s) of the MAG and the selection of its membership. The idea to >>> open the MAG for its two meetings in May and June seemed a good idea >>> as it catches 2 birds with one stone. This way, we increase the >>> transparency of the MAG's work and we avoid the rotation process in >>> the face of an uncertain future. Everybody can join and help >>> organize the next meeting. Hence, opening up the meeting shouldn't >>> have an impact on the MAG's agenda or tasks. >>> >>> presupposes that only one part of the WSIS mandate >>>> for the IGF - acting as a policy discussion space (and that too in >>>> a largely unstructured way) - is relevant and should ever be >>>> attempted. This is what I mean by saying that the 'experiment' is >>>> pre-emptive. Without MAG - in fact ,without a MAG that takes up a >>>> larger set of goals and activities - these other parts of the IGF >>>> mandate can just not begun to be addressed. >>> >>> After 4 years of MAG I would say that the interpretation of the >>> MAG's responsibilities depends to some degree on its (rotating) >>> membership. I can well imagine that the MAG or any other future >>> advisory group might consider taking over other tasks. If I >>> understand you correctly, Parminder, you imply that only a formally >>> constituted group with a exlusive membership could take over broader >>> responsibilities? If so, I havn't thought about this enough to agree >>> or disagree with you on this. >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> Since it is unclear whether after 2010 there will be a new mandate >>>>> for an IGF and if so, whether the new IGF will continue to have a >>>>> secretariat and a non-bureau like preparatory structure, this >>>>> year's preparation seems to be a good opportunity to experiment >>>>> with processes that are more open and transparent and less >>>>> burdensome. >>>> Burdensome! Well that depends on what we look to the IGF to >>>> achieve. and it is well known that there are very different views >>>> on this subject. So why a certain view at one end of the spectrum >>>> is made to look like the obvious and natural one, and processes >>>> being described as burdensome or not in relation to that view of >>>> the IGF's objective. >>>> >>>> Any serious difficult work can look burdensome. Helping along >>>> global policy making can look burdensome, but to others it may be >>>> immensely necessary, and also mandated by the WSIS. IGC has often >>>> sought that IGF/MAG does inter-sessional work, form WGs, develop >>>> background material, make more specific agenda with specific >>>> questions of policy (IRP dynamic coalition's recent statement too >>>> seeks this)... any of this may look burdensome, but still be very >>>> necessary to evolve towards. What happens to all those demands of >>>> the IGC and many others? Why cant we do some experiment towards >>>> this direction rather than in the opposite direction to it? >>> >>> I remember that we have discussed this issue before. I also remember >>> that I disagreed with your view on the current state of things. In >>> my view, the regional IGFs are evolving into a bottom-up process of >>> inter-sessional meetings. The fact that they are geographically >>> organized doesn't mean that there is no link between them. What I >>> like about these regional efforts is that they were not centrally >>> organized but emerged from local initiatives. I think this is a much >>> better way of creating a dense network of IGF related processes and >>> structures than to empower a body such as the MAG to do so. >>> >>>>> The annual rotation does involve a lot of work for both the >>>>> secretariat and all stakeholder groups. >>> >>>> Now, I dont see why simply extending the term of the old MAG does >>>> not solve that problem. >>> >>> As I said on the MAG list, I would find it unacceptable if the MAG >>> simply extended its term without asking those who nominated the >>> present members in the first place. The little reaction on the MAG >>> list suggests that not many members share this point of view. I'd >>> assume that the caucus would have loudly protested if we had just >>> announced that we wouldn't rotate this year but just serve another >>> term. Rightly so in my opinion. >>> >>> >>> Why should it entail an experiment to see if MAG is >>>> at all necessary or not. >>> >>> The question is whether or not the MAG needs to be an exclusive >>> club. You attended the meeting last September. It did work well, >>> didn't it? >>> >>> >>>> So, the 'do we even need a MAG' experiment seems to not have much >>>> to do with the rotation issue, does it. >>> >>> It does also reflect the open meeting in September. It is good to >>> get those who organize workshops and main session fully and early >>> involved. >>> >>> I leave at that. I think others should chip in as well. >>> >>> jeanette >>>> >>>> Second is the wrapping up of this issue in the very tempting cover >>>> of more openness. (As an aside I may mention that many who seem to >>>> support the no-MAG experiment did not support the proposal that >>>> the discussion list of MAG be public, which is a contradiction >>>> if the most pressing objective here may just be 'openness'.) >>>> Greater openness and even participation is a very different >>>> issue than doing away with a representative body, which may be >>>> required to accomplish many task that cannot be done by 'open >>>> houses'. We all know there are many such tasks, some of them stated >>>> above as expectations expressed by the IGC from the IGF process. >>>> >>>> So if we indeed want to explore experiments and people's views and >>>> where to move forward from here, we can as well be posing >>>> questions like >>>> >>>> "Do you think IGF should accomplish certain objectives, beyond what >>>> it may be achieving at present? If so. will it require a more >>>> structured IGF, with an active core representative multistakeholder >>>> group steering it?" >>>> And in the spirit of these questions experiment with a few >>>> different activities and ways of work in the MAG, instead of a >>>> do-we-need-a-MAG-at-all experiment. >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>>> >>>>> jeanette >>>>> >>>>> Parminder wrote: >>>>>> Hi All >>>>>> >>>>>> I just now posted the following message to the IGF MAG list. More >>>>>> openness is always welcome but there are also some larger >>>>>> structural questions about the mandate and efficacy of the IGF >>>>>> which worry me since the proposal of 'only open meetings' has >>>>>> been made in connection with the need or not of renewing the MAG. >>>>>> I will posit these larger questions a little later while I share >>>>>> my mentioned email. Parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> (Disclosure: I am some kind of a member of the MAG system and am >>>>>> funded for attending its meeting. However, to be fair to me, I >>>>>> was also funded to attend the planning meeting in Sept which was >>>>>> *not* a MAG meeting.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Markus and others, >>>>>> >>>>>> A couple of questions come to my mind regarding the new proposal >>>>>> which could merit some discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does this mean that there will be no MAG post Feb? (I understand >>>>>> that MAG could exist while there be only open planning meeting >>>>>> as in Sept last.) >>>>>> >>>>>> If so, have we looked at all the implication - tangible and >>>>>> intangible - of there being no MAG in existence for a whole year >>>>>> in the run-up to an IGF meeting, and during the meeting? >>>>>> >>>>>> Does this in fact suggest that we could anyway more or less do >>>>>> without a MAG, and a couple of open preparatory/ planning >>>>>> meetings in Geneva, outcomes of which are culled/interpreted by >>>>>> the secretariat, is all that is needed to hold the IGF and comply >>>>>> with the WSIS requirements? >>>>>> >>>>>> Does trying out this practice in the year of possible structural >>>>>> changes to the IGF - possibly taken up along with its renewal if >>>>>> it comes - can have even more special significance? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks and best regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the MAG started discussing the issue of rotation for this year. >>>>>>> Some people were in favor of an extended term for the present >>>>>>> membership because it is not clear if the IGF's mandate will be >>>>>>> extended and, should it be extended, under what terms. It could >>>>>>> be that the MAG meeting in May would be the only one for the new >>>>>>> MAG. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on >>>>>>> this matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. >>>>>>> This afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came >>>>>>> up with a third solution. Markus just sent the following message >>>>>>> to the MAG list and asked me to forward it to the caucus list as >>>>>>> well. I expect the caucus will be happy about the proposed >>>>>>> solution? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jeanette has got a point! It might not go down well if any >>>>>>> decision were taken in this matter without consulting the >>>>>>> broader community! However, as there is a distinct possibility >>>>>>> that a renewed MAG will hold one meeting only, there is also a >>>>>>> strong argument against launching the heavy rotation machinery >>>>>>> just for the sake of this principle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I consulted with Jeanette and going through the pros and cons of >>>>>>> both approaches we both came to the conclusion that there might >>>>>>> be a third way. We both wondered whether there was any need for >>>>>>> a closed meeting at all in May. As last September's planning >>>>>>> meeting went rather well, we wondered whether we could not >>>>>>> prepare most of this year's meeting in an open process. By doing >>>>>>> so, we would also take into account the calls for more >>>>>>> inclusiveness and transparency made during the consultation in >>>>>>> Sharm. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The MAG would thus meet a last time next month and set the >>>>>>> agenda for the Vilnius meeting. The programme could be fleshed >>>>>>> out in two open planning meetings in May and June. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This could also be an experiment in view of a possible renewal >>>>>>> of the mandate. Should the mandate be renewed, any decision on >>>>>>> how to continue could be taken in light of this experiment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please let me know what you think about this possible approach. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>> Markus >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Sun Jan 17 01:18:01 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:48:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B51737A.60605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B52AB99.20706@itforchange.net> Katitza, I completely agree with your proposal for exploring how can the MAG work dynamically with a much larger participative group in a manner that there is more openness and participation, yet decision-making capacity is not compromised. This is exactly the way to go. However, in my understanding this is not the background and intent of the proposal on the table, because this will require constituting a MAG post Feb - whether with some new members or just the old one. However, the whole exercise started, as Jeanette says, in order to circumvent problems associated with either of these options of constituting a new MAG. Also, please see my comments in my email to Jeanette on what was the nature of last Sept meeting. My real problem is with the 'do we even need a MAG' part of the experiment, which corresponds to the nature of Sept 2009 meeting. As a group we primarily engage with the IGF, so when there is a proposal to possibly dismantle the only structured part of the IGF, I reckoned it is important to engage with it throughly, and thus this series of long emails from me. It is important to preserve, actually further build, MAG's decision making capacity. It is required even more for all kinds of structural evolutions that IGC and other CS groups have been proposing, and are in fact needed to meet the full mandate of the IGF. (The following is a broad socio-political critique and not directed personally towards anyone. I hope it is considered as legitimate in this group involved with political discussions.) But how it often happens in furthering 'status quoist' politics is as follows: structural changes keep on getting proposed for more and more openness, till a structure is reached whereby it is then convenient to say, well, the structure is so open that it is impossible to take any decisions, which simply serves the status quo and status quoists. This is one way neoliberalism deals with what it sees as the specter of politics. Give masses voice, but deny them structures for political action. And the voices will dissolve in a meaningless cacophony, while giving good release to the masses, which is useful to give to the oppressed especially in the times of all-pervasive new ICTs. After all, they too need to use ICTs for some purpose . I think a new 1984 kind of Orwellian political satire - though with almost the opposite logic - can be written on the future of masses with lots of voice and no political power (2024 ??). Parminder Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > > Parminder, all: > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I understand that there will be a > MAG+ meeting after the February consultation. The next meetings will > be similar to the September meeting, where MAG and non-MAG members > were in charge of organizing the panels. Last year the process of the > selection of speakers well not known until the end, nor we really have > a truly discussion about the format with the overall MAG in a way that > we can achieve consensus. We do many things in the last minutes. > > This year, we can be ready to build upon the MAG+. For example, we > should propose to discuss the process of how the MAG+ meeting will > work during the open consultations in February, if any. Which will be > the role of the MAG? How the decisions will be taken? Review what it > works and how it can be improved. For example, we can argue that if, > during the MAG+ meeting, we find a different consensus on how the > format should work in a specific session, we should be able to make a > decision and carry out that proposal. In other words, make substantive > decisions, if it is needed. The question is How"? May be, everyone > should be in the room. The MAG can make decisions. > > Finally, we need to have more alternative to this. These are just some > thoughts. > > All the best, Katitza > > > On Jan 16, 2010, at 3:06 AM, Parminder wrote: > >> Jeanette >> >> I am separately taking up here some issues of fact related to our >> discussion. >> >> You know that the September meeting, last year, was held under some >> special and a bit strange circumstances. It was designated as not >> a MAG meeting but just a planning meeting. I understand that you >> realise the implications of this which were vaguely stated in the >> May MAG meeting - that since it was not a MAG meeting it can only do >> superficial programmatic stuff and nothing more substantial. It >> could not amend anything on the program document already written >> by the MAG, or even add anything substantial. This would hold even if >> everyone present in the meeting room agreed to something, it simply >> was not possible to do it. (We were very active on human rights >> agenda late last year, but the closing/ locking of the program >> document made it impossible to do any real stuff on it anymore after >> May, even if there were political mass to do it.) Do you think such >> openness and increased participation is of much real meaning? Is it >> not much much better if there is more openness and greater >> participation while somebody with some substantive authority is also >> there to take notice of what all the increased participation really >> contributes. To be more specific, is it not much better if the >> authority of the representative multistakeholder group MAG is still >> open and alive at these meetings to be able to make any real >> substantive change/ additions etc to the program document? >> >> (On a more academic note, I have seen fewer real cases of such >> dramatic contradiction between formal and substantive participation >> as this!) >> >> So questions like >> >> >The question is whether or not the MAG needs to be an exclusive >> club. You attended the meeting last September. >It did work well, >> didn't it? >> >> are not as simple and obvious as they look on the surface. Yes, I >> want greater non-MAG participation as IGF program is fleshed out >> (and that in any case happened even in 2008 when Sept meeting was >> a real MAG meeting) but I do not want a very sketchy IGF agenda and >> program (so broad as to be largely meaningless) which also is locked >> up early in the year (as per the present proposal of no MAG meeting >> post Feb, in Feb itself) with no possibilities of any real >> substantive input after that. Do you want that? Thats what the >> present proposal will do. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> Hi Parminder, >>> >>> >>> Parminder wrote: >>>> Hi Jeanette, >>>> >>>> The proposal continues to bother me a lot in its possible wider >>>> ramifications. So excuse me to seek some clarifications, and engage >>>> in a bit of debate on the issue. >>> >>> I have no problem with that, on the contrary. >>> >>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> we discussed some of the implications you mention below. >>>>> >>>>> This year's meetings following the February meeting could be >>>>> regarded as an experiment to find out if a MAG is needed at all. >>>> But why this experiment and not many others that could be >>>> attempted. Like MAG taking a more pro-active role of doing more >>>> inter-sessional work, preparing background papers etc - stuff which >>>> has been a part of many a proposals for IGF evolution, including >>>> from the IGC. I think this thing being done in the name of an >>>> experiment can be very pre-emptive. >>>> >>>>> Perhaps open planning meetings such as the one we had in September >>>>> 2009 are sufficient for setting the agenda; perhaps the need for >>>>> some sort of steering committee does arise, perhaps not. >>> >>>> The view that the MAG does and should only do the narrow work of >>>> setting a very broad agenda >>> >>> You are linking two things that seem to me indirectly connected: the >>> task(s) of the MAG and the selection of its membership. The idea to >>> open the MAG for its two meetings in May and June seemed a good idea >>> as it catches 2 birds with one stone. This way, we increase the >>> transparency of the MAG's work and we avoid the rotation process in >>> the face of an uncertain future. Everybody can join and help >>> organize the next meeting. Hence, opening up the meeting shouldn't >>> have an impact on the MAG's agenda or tasks. >>> >>> presupposes that only one part of the WSIS mandate >>>> for the IGF - acting as a policy discussion space (and that too in >>>> a largely unstructured way) - is relevant and should ever be >>>> attempted. This is what I mean by saying that the 'experiment' is >>>> pre-emptive. Without MAG - in fact ,without a MAG that takes up a >>>> larger set of goals and activities - these other parts of the IGF >>>> mandate can just not begun to be addressed. >>> >>> After 4 years of MAG I would say that the interpretation of the >>> MAG's responsibilities depends to some degree on its (rotating) >>> membership. I can well imagine that the MAG or any other future >>> advisory group might consider taking over other tasks. If I >>> understand you correctly, Parminder, you imply that only a formally >>> constituted group with a exlusive membership could take over broader >>> responsibilities? If so, I havn't thought about this enough to agree >>> or disagree with you on this. >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> Since it is unclear whether after 2010 there will be a new mandate >>>>> for an IGF and if so, whether the new IGF will continue to have a >>>>> secretariat and a non-bureau like preparatory structure, this >>>>> year's preparation seems to be a good opportunity to experiment >>>>> with processes that are more open and transparent and less >>>>> burdensome. >>>> Burdensome! Well that depends on what we look to the IGF to >>>> achieve. and it is well known that there are very different views >>>> on this subject. So why a certain view at one end of the spectrum >>>> is made to look like the obvious and natural one, and processes >>>> being described as burdensome or not in relation to that view of >>>> the IGF's objective. >>>> >>>> Any serious difficult work can look burdensome. Helping along >>>> global policy making can look burdensome, but to others it may be >>>> immensely necessary, and also mandated by the WSIS. IGC has often >>>> sought that IGF/MAG does inter-sessional work, form WGs, develop >>>> background material, make more specific agenda with specific >>>> questions of policy (IRP dynamic coalition's recent statement too >>>> seeks this)... any of this may look burdensome, but still be very >>>> necessary to evolve towards. What happens to all those demands of >>>> the IGC and many others? Why cant we do some experiment towards >>>> this direction rather than in the opposite direction to it? >>> >>> I remember that we have discussed this issue before. I also remember >>> that I disagreed with your view on the current state of things. In >>> my view, the regional IGFs are evolving into a bottom-up process of >>> inter-sessional meetings. The fact that they are geographically >>> organized doesn't mean that there is no link between them. What I >>> like about these regional efforts is that they were not centrally >>> organized but emerged from local initiatives. I think this is a much >>> better way of creating a dense network of IGF related processes and >>> structures than to empower a body such as the MAG to do so. >>> >>>>> The annual rotation does involve a lot of work for both the >>>>> secretariat and all stakeholder groups. >>> >>>> Now, I dont see why simply extending the term of the old MAG does >>>> not solve that problem. >>> >>> As I said on the MAG list, I would find it unacceptable if the MAG >>> simply extended its term without asking those who nominated the >>> present members in the first place. The little reaction on the MAG >>> list suggests that not many members share this point of view. I'd >>> assume that the caucus would have loudly protested if we had just >>> announced that we wouldn't rotate this year but just serve another >>> term. Rightly so in my opinion. >>> >>> >>> Why should it entail an experiment to see if MAG is >>>> at all necessary or not. >>> >>> The question is whether or not the MAG needs to be an exclusive >>> club. You attended the meeting last September. It did work well, >>> didn't it? >>> >>> >>>> So, the 'do we even need a MAG' experiment seems to not have much >>>> to do with the rotation issue, does it. >>> >>> It does also reflect the open meeting in September. It is good to >>> get those who organize workshops and main session fully and early >>> involved. >>> >>> I leave at that. I think others should chip in as well. >>> >>> jeanette >>>> >>>> Second is the wrapping up of this issue in the very tempting cover >>>> of more openness. (As an aside I may mention that many who seem to >>>> support the no-MAG experiment did not support the proposal that >>>> the discussion list of MAG be public, which is a contradiction >>>> if the most pressing objective here may just be 'openness'.) >>>> Greater openness and even participation is a very different >>>> issue than doing away with a representative body, which may be >>>> required to accomplish many task that cannot be done by 'open >>>> houses'. We all know there are many such tasks, some of them stated >>>> above as expectations expressed by the IGC from the IGF process. >>>> >>>> So if we indeed want to explore experiments and people's views and >>>> where to move forward from here, we can as well be posing >>>> questions like >>>> >>>> "Do you think IGF should accomplish certain objectives, beyond what >>>> it may be achieving at present? If so. will it require a more >>>> structured IGF, with an active core representative multistakeholder >>>> group steering it?" >>>> And in the spirit of these questions experiment with a few >>>> different activities and ways of work in the MAG, instead of a >>>> do-we-need-a-MAG-at-all experiment. >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>>> >>>>> jeanette >>>>> >>>>> Parminder wrote: >>>>>> Hi All >>>>>> >>>>>> I just now posted the following message to the IGF MAG list. More >>>>>> openness is always welcome but there are also some larger >>>>>> structural questions about the mandate and efficacy of the IGF >>>>>> which worry me since the proposal of 'only open meetings' has >>>>>> been made in connection with the need or not of renewing the MAG. >>>>>> I will posit these larger questions a little later while I share >>>>>> my mentioned email. Parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> (Disclosure: I am some kind of a member of the MAG system and am >>>>>> funded for attending its meeting. However, to be fair to me, I >>>>>> was also funded to attend the planning meeting in Sept which was >>>>>> *not* a MAG meeting.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Markus and others, >>>>>> >>>>>> A couple of questions come to my mind regarding the new proposal >>>>>> which could merit some discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does this mean that there will be no MAG post Feb? (I understand >>>>>> that MAG could exist while there be only open planning meeting >>>>>> as in Sept last.) >>>>>> >>>>>> If so, have we looked at all the implication - tangible and >>>>>> intangible - of there being no MAG in existence for a whole year >>>>>> in the run-up to an IGF meeting, and during the meeting? >>>>>> >>>>>> Does this in fact suggest that we could anyway more or less do >>>>>> without a MAG, and a couple of open preparatory/ planning >>>>>> meetings in Geneva, outcomes of which are culled/interpreted by >>>>>> the secretariat, is all that is needed to hold the IGF and comply >>>>>> with the WSIS requirements? >>>>>> >>>>>> Does trying out this practice in the year of possible structural >>>>>> changes to the IGF - possibly taken up along with its renewal if >>>>>> it comes - can have even more special significance? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks and best regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the MAG started discussing the issue of rotation for this year. >>>>>>> Some people were in favor of an extended term for the present >>>>>>> membership because it is not clear if the IGF's mandate will be >>>>>>> extended and, should it be extended, under what terms. It could >>>>>>> be that the MAG meeting in May would be the only one for the new >>>>>>> MAG. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on >>>>>>> this matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. >>>>>>> This afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came >>>>>>> up with a third solution. Markus just sent the following message >>>>>>> to the MAG list and asked me to forward it to the caucus list as >>>>>>> well. I expect the caucus will be happy about the proposed >>>>>>> solution? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jeanette has got a point! It might not go down well if any >>>>>>> decision were taken in this matter without consulting the >>>>>>> broader community! However, as there is a distinct possibility >>>>>>> that a renewed MAG will hold one meeting only, there is also a >>>>>>> strong argument against launching the heavy rotation machinery >>>>>>> just for the sake of this principle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I consulted with Jeanette and going through the pros and cons of >>>>>>> both approaches we both came to the conclusion that there might >>>>>>> be a third way. We both wondered whether there was any need for >>>>>>> a closed meeting at all in May. As last September's planning >>>>>>> meeting went rather well, we wondered whether we could not >>>>>>> prepare most of this year's meeting in an open process. By doing >>>>>>> so, we would also take into account the calls for more >>>>>>> inclusiveness and transparency made during the consultation in >>>>>>> Sharm. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The MAG would thus meet a last time next month and set the >>>>>>> agenda for the Vilnius meeting. The programme could be fleshed >>>>>>> out in two open planning meetings in May and June. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This could also be an experiment in view of a possible renewal >>>>>>> of the mandate. Should the mandate be renewed, any decision on >>>>>>> how to continue could be taken in light of this experiment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please let me know what you think about this possible approach. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>> Markus >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Sun Jan 17 01:28:24 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:28:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statement Para 2 REVISION 2.x In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: All, In my initial spreadsheet, I did NOT count the Internet Technical community folk as CS, even tho many of them are on the IGC list. When I have done these spreadsheets in the past, some have objected to the notion of ITC folk counting as CS. As most of you know, I DO count them as CS, so this second sheet does that. By this analysis, CS and govt representation is roughly equivalent, and the PS gets the short end of the stick. I am assuming that many of the folk on the MAG that I have counted as ITC are on the IGC list. I leave it as an exercise for the coordinators, who have a list of those subscribed, to compare MAG members to list subscribers. NB: Not all CS MAG members may be IGC subscribers, but if I understand our charter well, ALL list subscribers who are on the MAG should be considered CS members. I think I have reached my quota for the day. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: analysis of MAG membership, with ITC counted as CS.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 37888 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Jan 17 02:32:20 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:32:20 +1100 Subject: [governance] IGC statement Para 2 REVISION 2.x In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Mc Tim, you could also do a third sheet and put the various technical folk into PS, which is definitely where at least some of them belong. That would give another and different skew. Also > NB: Not all CS MAG members may be IGC subscribers, but if I understand > our charter well, ALL list subscribers who are on the MAG should be > considered CS members. NO. Don't know where you got that from. Some are government and some are PS. This is an open list. And irreverently "A SEARCH indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." (Apologies to Jon Postel) A name is an irrelevance these days. > From: McTim > Reply-To: , McTim > Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:28:24 +0300 > To: , Jeremy Malcolm > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement Para 2 REVISION 2.x > > All, > > In my initial spreadsheet, I did NOT count the Internet Technical > community folk as CS, even tho many of them are on the IGC list. When > I have done these spreadsheets in the past, some have objected to the > notion of ITC folk counting as CS. > > As most of you know, I DO count them as CS, so this second sheet does > that. By this analysis, CS and govt representation is roughly > equivalent, and the PS gets the short end of the stick. > > I am assuming that many of the folk on the MAG that I have counted as > ITC are on the IGC list. I leave it as an exercise for the > coordinators, who have a list of those subscribed, to compare MAG > members to list subscribers. > > NB: Not all CS MAG members may be IGC subscribers, but if I understand > our charter well, ALL list subscribers who are on the MAG should be > considered CS members. > > I think I have reached my quota for the day. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 17 04:54:36 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:54:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statement Para 2 REVISION 2.x In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Mc Tim, you could also do a third sheet and put the various technical folk > into PS, which is definitely where at least some of them belong. That would > give another and different skew. I can do that if you tell me which ones and why. > > Also > >> NB: Not all CS MAG members may be IGC subscribers, but if I understand >> our charter well, ALL list subscribers who are on the MAG should be >> considered CS members. > > > NO. Don't know where you got that from. Some are government and some are PS. > This is an open list. Right, I misspoke (typed). I should have said all CS IGC Members should be considered CS. Do you disagree? > > > And irreverently > > > "A SEARCH indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." (Apologies to Jon Postel) > > A name is an irrelevance these days. Then why all the heat and light around ICANN issues? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Jan 17 05:11:07 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:11:07 +1100 Subject: OFFLIST Re: [governance] IGC statement Para 2 REVISION 2.x In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi McTim, > From: McTim > Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:54:36 +0300 > To: Ian Peter > Cc: > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement Para 2 REVISION 2.x > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Mc Tim, you could also do a third sheet and put the various technical folk >> into PS, which is definitely where at least some of them belong. That would >> give another and different skew. > > I can do that if you tell me which ones and why. All of them who are not active here and who have company or corporate names attached on the list would be a good start ;-). > >> >> Also >> >>> NB: Not all CS MAG members may be IGC subscribers, but if I understand >>> our charter well, ALL list subscribers who are on the MAG should be >>> considered CS members. >> >> >> NO. Don't know where you got that from. Some are government and some are PS. >> This is an open list. > > Right, I misspoke (typed). I should have said all CS IGC Members > should be considered CS. Do you disagree? Not sure where this is going.... > >> >> >> And irreverently >> >> >> "A SEARCH indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." (Apologies to Jon Postel) >> >> A name is an irrelevance these days. > > Then why all the heat and light around ICANN issues? > I often ask myself the same question.... > > -- > 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Jan 17 05:13:43 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:13:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC statement Para 2 REVISION 2.x In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Mc Tim, you could also do a third sheet and put the various technical folk >> into PS, which is definitely where at least some of them belong. That would >> give another and different skew. > >I can do that if you tell me which ones and why. Sunday, Nii? Because they are businessmen... But it's a little meaningless to talk about specific names. I can see 4 people you have as civil society who are pretty definitely business people. Many MAG members have overlapping interests (I've been involved with ISOC for almost 20 years and ICANN for 10, but when on the MAG and in WSIS I've always been associated with civil society), but my guess is those you have listed as both CS and tech community were presented to the secretary general as primarily associated with the tech community. Perhaps there were bios noting any overlapping interest, multiple "hats", or whoever made up a list for the SG took these overlaps into consideration. But my experience is some of the tech community folks lean towards CS, but many are pretty clearly aligned with business. I think the exercise of trying to divide people up a bit meaningless, other than to show the dominance of government (but we know about that, and it's been admitted as something that is likely to stay). If civil society wants more members it should make a case for why based on missing expertise, diversity etc, rather than saying there's too many of someone else (though I don't really understand why there are so many ccTLD folks, the individuals are great, but they hardly bring enormous diversity in their linkages to wider communities.) Adam > > >> Also >> >>> NB: Not all CS MAG members may be IGC subscribers, but if I understand >>> our charter well, ALL list subscribers who are on the MAG should be >>> considered CS members. >> >> >> NO. Don't know where you got that from. Some are government and some are PS. >> This is an open list. > >Right, I misspoke (typed). I should have said all CS IGC Members >should be considered CS. Do you disagree? > >> >> >> And irreverently >> >> >> "A SEARCH indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." (Apologies to Jon Postel) >> >> A name is an irrelevance these days. > >Then why all the heat and light around ICANN issues? > > >-- >Cheers, > >McTim >"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Jan 17 06:42:02 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:42:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B51737A.60605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <66M+Xu9KevULFAyW@perry.co.uk> In message , at 21:23:16 on Sat, 16 Jan 2010, Katitza Rodriguez writes > Last year the process of the selection of speakers well not known >until the end ... > We do many things in the last minutes. My understanding of the timing last year was that the main panel speakers, rather than VIPs flying in for one session, were expected to be selected from people already attending the meeting because they were on a panel in one of the workshops. So until the successful merging and scheduling of the workshops, that could not be finally determined. I can easily see the sessions in May and June becoming largely corridor-discussions within a number of caucus's for each proposed workshop or panel, much along the lines of last year's September discussions about merging workshops with similar themes. Last year, that process of workshop merging, by email, wasn't very efficient as far as I could tell; the ever changing deadlines being a strong indicator of this. Matters progress at ten times the pace, face to face. Better to lock everyone in a room in Geneva and say "you can't get your slot in the schedule until you've worked out just one workshop agenda on and come to us with a list of speakers". So rather than be a "last minute" activity (as it was at the EBU in September) make it the "planned activity" in May this year. And in June populate the main panels with speakers drawn from the workshops finalised in May, perhaps using the skills of some kind of "MAG of all the workshop organisers". I know this approach may offend fans of remote working, but time is short and we need to have fewer workshops, on subjects and in time slots where the audience for each is expected to exceed double figures. Just my two cents. ===on the MAG=== My plan above puts a heavy responsibility on the existing MAG to conduct all its business for 2010 at the February meeting (or very soon after). That's mainly because we are meeting in Vilnius earlier in the year, and not because of the issue of selecting a new MAG - which may in any event become a lame duck as soon as it's clear what plans the wider UN process has for 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jan 17 08:09:39 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:09:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statement Para 2 REVISION 2.x In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Ian Peter >> wrote: >>> >>>  Mc Tim, you could also do a third sheet and put the various technical >>> folk >>>  into PS, which is definitely where at least some of them belong. That >>> would >>>  give another and different skew. >> >> I can do that if you tell me which ones and why. > > > Sunday, Nii?  Because they are businessmen... Perhaps they are, I ONLY know them however in the context of CS activities (AfNOG mainly). > > But it's a little meaningless to talk about specific names. If we are going to say its slanted, then isn't it incumbent to say how its slanted? If we say how its slanted, then don't we have to know who is who? I would rather not say anything about it at all if we aren't going to be precise. It just seems whingy in the current formulation. -- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Jan 17 08:39:43 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:39:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC statement Para 2 REVISION 2.x In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Ian Peter >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>  Mc Tim, you could also do a third sheet and put the various technical >>>> folk >>>>  into PS, which is definitely where at least some of them belong. That >>>> would >>>>  give another and different skew. >>> >>> I can do that if you tell me which ones and why. >> >> >> Sunday, Nii?  Because they are businessmen... > >Perhaps they are, I ONLY know them however in the context of CS >activities (AfNOG mainly). What are you saying, everyone attending afnog, nanog, ietf is civil society? that a person might be there to represent a company is irrelevant? Anyway, they are clearly both business guys (and they are both active on the tech community, but I don't see how that makes them civil society.) Charles Sha'ban, business. Waudo Siganga, business (he represents commercial organizations, African leadership of WITSA). Richard Sambrook, business, you're not suggesting the BBC is civil society? Adam > > >> But it's a little meaningless to talk about specific names. > >If we are going to say its slanted, then isn't it incumbent to say how >its slanted? If we say how its slanted, then don't we have to know who >is who? > >I would rather not say anything about it at all if we aren't going to >be precise. It just seems whingy in the current formulation. > >-- >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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Jan 17 08:57:04 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 05:57:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: Para one In-Reply-To: 38620035-385B-424A-9C31-9E26E14846FF@datos-personales.org Message-ID: > We are working here towards upholding human rights on the Internet.... Katitza / McTIm, First; "I belive" ... that there is quite a bit more diversity in this Group (the IGC / this List) than those whom are Stakeholders in "human rights on the Internet" issues. Second, although I hold a small (or an associated) concern in regards to Internet-Human-Rights via the development of Social Contracts [K], I feel that this List has been 'steered' (almost hyjacked) into the Internet-Human-Rights issue, as now it is the List's Mandate. I resent that, this List used to be open to all concepts of Internet governance, and stood to address a diversity of interest. Third; In the immediate Thread [IGC statement REVISION 2.x], I feel the issue should 'make a Statement' in regards to the ITU and the possible/speculative 'Pronouncements' it will make upon the "ITU pushed WSIS Forum in May 2010 and the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in October " as Wolfgang* has in formed and accurately forewarned this List. The ITU *will* absorbe the space which the IGC creates, upon the event a power vacume is manufactured by the ending of the IGF. The ITU will position itself and make such a Declaration (Center of IG Governance) of Power. It needs to be addressed and countered, at this time (in this Statement). - * Wolfgang Kleinwächter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society re IGF Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:13:24 +0100 [ http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-01/msg00194.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 isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Jan 17 11:15:50 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:45:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement Para 2 REVISION 2.x In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello All, If these three names are counted out, Civil Society has a total of 23 names which would make it 34% and if ITC is counted as Business, then it is 25, 23 and 22 members elected from Government, Civil Society and Business respectively, amounting to 35%, 33% and 31% which is balanced enough. Are these three names counted as Civil Society by McTim or have they been elected as representatives of Civil Society? It would certainly be a matter of concern if they are seen by MAG as representatives of Civil Society as it would be an indication of civil society seats taken by Business. I have a question: Are these broad classifications sufficient to group the universe of participants? How accurate are these classifications? Do all stakeholders fit into a total of three stakeholder classes? For instance how do we classify members from the Press or from the academia? Members from academia are part of civil society with the rationale that they are neither government or business. But this could be a distinct stakeholder group as a group that is possibly balanced within itself. Along this line of thinking, do we have to think of more than three stakeholder groups? Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://www.isocmadras.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Ian Peter >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mc Tim, you could also do a third sheet and put the various technical >>>>> folk >>>>> into PS, which is definitely where at least some of them belong. That >>>>> would >>>>> give another and different skew. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I can do that if you tell me which ones and why. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Sunday, Nii? Because they are businessmen... >>> >> >> Perhaps they are, I ONLY know them however in the context of CS >> activities (AfNOG mainly). >> > > > What are you saying, everyone attending afnog, nanog, ietf is civil > society? that a person might be there to represent a company is irrelevant? > > Anyway, they are clearly both business guys (and they are both active on > the tech community, but I don't see how that makes them civil society.) > > Charles Sha'ban, business. Waudo Siganga, business (he represents > commercial organizations, African leadership of WITSA). Richard Sambrook, > business, you're not suggesting the BBC is civil society? > > Adam > > > > > > >> >>> But it's a little meaningless to talk about specific names. >>> >> >> If we are going to say its slanted, then isn't it incumbent to say how >> its slanted? If we say how its slanted, then don't we have to know who >> is who? >> >> I would rather not say anything about it at all if we aren't going to >> be precise. It just seems whingy in the current formulation. >> >> -- >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Jan 17 11:39:12 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:09:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: Para one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Katiza's objection to McTim's revised statement stems from a fear that an independent IGF wouldn't uphold human rights on the Internet. Is this a valid assumption? The idea of an independent IGF is not restricted to the scenario of the mandate not being renewed. The IGC has to be emphatic in its position that the mandate has to be renewed and for the next phase of 5 of 10 years, we may consider a more independent IGF, with the independence conceded by the UN wholeheartedly. The idea is not an independent IGF that is distant from the UN, but rather an independent IGF that is respectful of its origins as a UN initiated forum. It is necessary to push for the continuation of IGF as a UN mandated forum, though not insisting on funding from the UN. The Civil Society may be confident of mobilizing the required funds or organizing the forum, but it may not work as a forum continued without the UN mandate. In traditional language, we need UN's blessings even to continue the IGF on our own. I still feel that the renewal of the mandate is an unnecessary doubt. What we need to be wary of is ITU's designs to expand its illegitimate role in policy making. ITU manages to stay close to Governments and is in a position to mislead Government participants to create the vacuum that it requires. We need to be very very watchful and careful. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://www.isocmadras.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > > > We are working here towards upholding human rights on the Internet.... > > Katitza / McTIm, > > First; "I belive" ... that there is quite a bit more diversity in this > Group > (the IGC / this List) than those whom are Stakeholders in "human rights on > the > Internet" issues. > Second, although I hold a small (or an associated) concern in regards to > Internet-Human-Rights via the development of Social Contracts [K], > I feel that this List has been 'steered' (almost hyjacked) into the > Internet-Human-Rights issue, as now it is the List's Mandate. > I resent that, this List used to be open to all concepts of Internet > governance, and stood to address a diversity of interest. > > Third; In the immediate Thread [IGC statement REVISION 2.x], I feel the > issue > should 'make a Statement' in regards to the ITU and the > possible/speculative > 'Pronouncements' it will make upon the "ITU pushed > WSIS Forum in May 2010 and the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in October " > as > Wolfgang* has in formed and accurately forewarned this List. > > The ITU *will* absorbe the space which the IGC creates, upon the event a > power > vacume is manufactured by the ending of the IGF. The ITU will position > itself > and make such a Declaration (Center of IG Governance) of Power. > > It needs to be addressed and countered, at this time (in this Statement). > > - > > * Wolfgang Kleinwächter > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society re IGF > Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:13:24 +0100 > > [ http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-01/msg00194.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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 datos-personales.org Sun Jan 17 11:41:59 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:41:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: Para one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1A444F39-83AD-4A89-A313-D5307BC53B8D@datos-personales.org> No. My point is a legal one. On Jan 17, 2010, at 11:39 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Katiza's objection to McTim's revised statement stems from a fear > that an independent IGF wouldn't uphold human rights on the > Internet. Is this a valid assumption? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 datos-personales.org Sun Jan 17 11:44:00 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:44:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: Para one In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1023736E-61AE-4126-A6C2-9853B97C719A@datos-personales.org> Hola Shiva :) I am busy this weekend but I will reply to you soon. :) In the meantime, On Jan 17, 2010, at 11:39 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > Katiza's objection to McTim's revised statement stems from a fear > that an independent IGF wouldn't uphold human rights on the > Internet. Is this a valid assumption? My point is a legal one. However, let me send my comments on Tuesday or Monday night. I have many deadlines that due on Monday. All the best, Katitza > > The idea of an independent IGF is not restricted to the scenario of > the mandate not being renewed. The IGC has to be emphatic in its > position that the mandate has to be renewed and for the next phase > of 5 of 10 years, we may consider a more independent IGF, with the > independence conceded by the UN wholeheartedly. The idea is not an > independent IGF that is distant from the UN, but rather an > independent IGF that is respectful of its origins as a UN initiated > forum. > > It is necessary to push for the continuation of IGF as a UN mandated > forum, though not insisting on funding from the UN. The Civil > Society may be confident of mobilizing the required funds or > organizing the forum, but it may not work as a forum continued > without the UN mandate. In traditional language, we need UN's > blessings even to continue the IGF on our own. > > I still feel that the renewal of the mandate is an unnecessary > doubt. What we need to be wary of is ITU's designs to expand its > illegitimate role in policy making. ITU manages to stay close to > Governments and is in a position to mislead Government participants > to create the vacuum that it requires. We need to be very very > watchful and careful. > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > http://www.isocmadras.com > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > > > > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Yehuda Katz > wrote: > > > We are working here towards upholding human rights on the > Internet.... > > Katitza / McTIm, > > First; "I belive" ... that there is quite a bit more diversity in > this Group > (the IGC / this List) than those whom are Stakeholders in "human > rights on the > Internet" issues. > Second, although I hold a small (or an associated) concern in > regards to > Internet-Human-Rights via the development of Social Contracts [K], > I feel that this List has been 'steered' (almost hyjacked) into the > Internet-Human-Rights issue, as now it is the List's Mandate. > I resent that, this List used to be open to all concepts of Internet > governance, and stood to address a diversity of interest. > > Third; In the immediate Thread [IGC statement REVISION 2.x], I feel > the issue > should 'make a Statement' in regards to the ITU and the possible/ > speculative > 'Pronouncements' it will make upon the "ITU pushed > WSIS Forum in May 2010 and the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in > October " as > Wolfgang* has in formed and accurately forewarned this List. > > The ITU *will* absorbe the space which the IGC creates, upon the > event a power > vacume is manufactured by the ending of the IGF. The ITU will > position itself > and make such a Declaration (Center of IG Governance) of Power. > > It needs to be addressed and countered, at this time (in this > Statement). > > - > > * Wolfgang Kleinwächter > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society re > IGF > Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:13:24 +0100 > > [ http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-01/msg00194.html ] > > ---____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 17 14:16:17 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:16:17 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statement Para 2 REVISION 2.x In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>  Sunday, Nii?  Because they are businessmen... >> >> Perhaps they are, I ONLY know them however in the context of CS >> activities (AfNOG mainly). > > > What are you saying, everyone attending afnog, nanog, ietf is civil society? AfNOG does no technical coordination. It is purely educational. I see it as pure CS. People who attend AfNOG work for PS, govt and CS orgs. Volunteers do the trainings. > that a person might be there to represent a company is irrelevant? Yes, irrelevant, there is no representation of company views. People attend to learn (and to teach). It's about sharing BPs. IETF, may be different, but we are not talking about that. > > Anyway, they are clearly both business guys (and they are both active on the > tech community, but I don't see how that makes them civil society.) They are both involved in efforts to spread the Internet in Africa, giving tirelessly of their time and knowledge for over a decade with no compensation. That's what makes them CS IMHO. > > Charles Sha'ban, business. OK  Waudo Siganga, business (he represents > commercial organizations, African leadership of WITSA). From the content of his posts to the KitaNet list, I assumed he was CS, but we can call him business.  Richard Sambrook, > business, you're not suggesting the BBC is civil society? Some do, some don't:: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/8/0/0/2/p180025_index.html So even if we call him business, by Sivas math (just posted) there is an equitable balance. So can we not bitch about it any more? Lets strike that sentence from Para 2, shall we? -- 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 Mon Jan 18 03:39:56 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:39:56 +0800 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B529F4E.1090200@itforchange.net> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B516ABC.1080708@itforchange.net> <4B51FBC2.7020407@wzb.eu> <4B529F4E.1090200@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <8C6EFDC4-E1BF-4692-98C1-B037809E33E3@ciroap.org> On 17/01/2010, at 1:25 PM, Parminder wrote: > But if the MAG will be preserved after Feb, by just extending the tenure of the present MAG I dont see what problem has been solved by this 'third way' or experiment. If the proposal is just to have real MAG+ meetings in May and June, why do we say we are repeating Sept 2009 experiment which was not a MAG plus meeting, but simply a planning meeting. To repeat, for it to be MAG or MAG plus meeting the MAG's authority to make substantive changes to the program document should be 'alive and existing' at the time of the meeting, and possible to be exercised. ... > But how it often happens in furthering 'status quoist' politics is as follows: structural changes keep on getting proposed for more and more openness, till a structure is reached whereby it is then convenient to say, well, the structure is so open that it is impossible to take any decisions, which simply serves the status quo and status quoists. Parminder has (as usual) voiced my concerns more eloquently than I earlier did. Even while there has been a MAG meeting three times a year, important decisions have still been made without reference to it. I worry that, as little authority as the MAG has been allowed as it is, the Secretariat is at least likely to let it out on a longer leash than the open consultation meeting. In my personal (non-coordinator) view, management of the IGF is a case where some (accountable, transparent) hierarchical structure is needed. -- 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 Jan 18 03:46:58 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:46:58 +0800 Subject: [governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society re IGF In-Reply-To: <4cveuWiHieULFAh$@perry.co.uk> References: <4B4EF6B9.7050709@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AB1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AB2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4B51CBC7.80206@itforchange.net> <4cveuWiHieULFAh$@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: On 17/01/2010, at 12:25 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4B51CBC7.80206 at itforchange.net>, at 19:53:03 on Sat, 16 Jan > 2010, Parminder writes >> Jeremy never said there *was* rough consensus. He only proposed a rough >> consensus. > > I can see what might be confusing. In his draft statement, Jeremy said: > > "We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these > thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several > hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of > geographic and gender representation." > > But obviously, until that draft statement is agreed, and becomes a final > statement, the list hasn't reached that consensus yet. Roland is of course correct. But if the statement in its revised form does not meet with your approval, because there is something in there you can't live with or there is something missing that you can't live without, now is the time to post your thoughts. Otherwise, the coordinators may soon make a consensus call, and by then it will be too late for radical changes. On that note, thanks McTim and Katitza for your latest contributions. I don't wish to interfere in the discussion of substantive issues, but in case it is helpful, I can't resist just briefly contributing something in reply to Katitza's remark: > We are working here towards upholding human rights on the Internet. The UN charter commits the United Nations and all Member States to action promoting "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms" (art. 55 / inc. c)). The UN does, yes - but this applies mostly to states; UN instruments do not directly bind individuals or companies (with some exceptions, eg. individuals can be tried for war crimes). However networks of other stakeholders can adopt their own charters of rights that are in a way akin to those of the UN which apply to states: for example, the Global Network Initiative (http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/). Thus if the IGF were to become such a non-UN body, the observance of human rights would not become any less binding on states, nor any more binding on non-states, than under a UN-based IGF. Really, its UN link makes no difference in that regard. The main reason for a UN-linked IGF is simply to secure the buy-in of states, which was missing from previous attempts at creating a global Internet policy forum. -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jan 18 04:08:12 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:08:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society re IGF In-Reply-To: References: <4B4EF6B9.7050709@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AB1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AB2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4B51CBC7.80206@itforchange.net> <4cveuWiHieULFAh$@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <49gOWRV8TCVLFALJ@perry.co.uk> In message , at 16:46:58 on Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Jeremy Malcolm writes >if the statement in its revised form does not meet with your approval, >because there is something in there you can't live with or there is >something missing that you can't live without, now is the time to post >your thoughts. I won't be posting anything myself. But your call to action should certainly be heeded by others. -- 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 Mon Jan 18 04:15:12 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:15:12 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B516ABC.1080708@itforchange.net> <4B51FBC2.7020407@wzb.eu> <4B529F4E.1090200@itforchange.net> <8C6EFDC4-E1BF-4692-98C1-B037809E33E3@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719ACC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Jeremy: In my personal (non-coordinator) view, management of the IGF is a case where some (accountable, transparent) hierarchical structure is needed. Wolfgang: Yes in principle. However lets be innovative and discuss also new creative mechanisms linked to the emerging concept of "liquid democracy" as it is disucssed with the German branch of the Pirate Party http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Liquid_Democracy I do not say that we should copy these concept but we can take this as a source of inspiration to think about future models how representation and participation, top down and bottom up, can be linked together in a more efficient way that the traditional structures we have inherited from the 20th century policy development process. Best wishes w -- 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Mon Jan 18 04:52:19 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:52:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <8C6EFDC4-E1BF-4692-98C1-B037809E33E3@ciroap.org> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B516ABC.1080708@itforchange.net> <4B51FBC2.7020407@wzb.eu> <4B529F4E.1090200@itforchange.net> <8C6EFDC4-E1BF-4692-98C1-B037809E33E3@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <79DEA182-710D-4058-A394-D6E500627E5B@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Jeremy, On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:39 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Parminder has (as usual) voiced my concerns more eloquently than I earlier did. Even while there has been a MAG meeting three times a year, important decisions have still been made without reference to it. I worry that, as little authority as the MAG has been allowed as it is, the Secretariat is at least likely to let it out on a longer leash than the open consultation meeting. In my personal (non-coordinator) view, management of the IGF is a case where some (accountable, transparent) hierarchical structure is needed. Could you help me to understand your concerns here? Which important decisions exactly have been made without reference to the MAG? I'm not privy to its internal deliberations, but as an outsider had thought that the MAG approves the program, main session speakers, etc. If that's not true and the MAG has been bypassed and had its authority eroded, have its members objected about this? One would think governments in particular would be jumping up and down and it'd be a big issue in the renewal debate, but I've not detected that so I must not be seeing the right documents etc. Any details would be appreciated, as this seems a rather pertinent point that underlies your statement in the proposed draft that > > Many of the IGC's members believe that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions about the future structure and processes of the IGF. I've not noticed many IGC members saying this so here too, any specifics would help me to assess the argument. I'm open to persuasion that I'm missing something, but at present most of the aspects of IGF I wish were different are not the result of the MAG having too little influence, needing a longer leash, etc. BTW, in a related vein, I'd ask you about something previously and would still be interested in an answer: On Jan 14, 2010, at 7:08 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> Wearing my cynical hat, this may just mean that any of the decisions that >> would otherwise have been made by the MAG in May will be made by the >> Secretariat instead, rather than submitting them to the anarchy of the open >> consultation meeting. > > How would that work? Markus' message to the MAG suggests they meet a last time next month and set the agenda for the Vilnius meeting, and the program then would be fleshed out in two open planning meetings in May and June. What decisions could the secretariat go off and make on its own without the two open planning meetings noticing, and why would it try to? Thanks for your help, 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Jan 18 05:30:35 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:30:35 +0800 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <79DEA182-710D-4058-A394-D6E500627E5B@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B516ABC.1080708@itforchange.net> <4B51FBC2.7020407@wzb.eu> <4B529F4E.1090200@itforchange.net> <8C6EFDC4-E1BF-4692-98C1-B037809E33E3@ciroap.org> <79DEA182-710D-4058-A394-D6E500627E5B@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <6EDE673D-7591-4D6A-AF72-ADBFAA913DEB@ciroap.org> On 18/01/2010, at 5:52 PM, William Drake wrote: > Could you help me to understand your concerns here? Which important decisions exactly have been made without reference to the MAG? A couple of examples that spring to mind are, from the last meeting, the selection of speakers for the "Taking Stock" session, and from Rio, the decision not to allow the Webcasting tool that the Brazilian Ministry of Culture had developed to be used to display (even pre-vetted) comments from the Internet in main sessions. I can provide more examples, but I'm replying quickly for now. > I'm not privy to its internal deliberations, but as an outsider had thought that the MAG approves the program, main session speakers, etc. If that's not true and the MAG has been bypassed and had its authority eroded, have its members objected about this? This doesn't happen because it isn't so much a case of trespassing on the MAG's authority, as circumscribing its authority very narrowly and treating it as something that shouldn't be questioned. The attitude is rather one of, "Obviously, remote participation questions are matters for the Secretariat alone to decide - how could it possibly be otherwise?" > BTW, in a related vein, I'd ask you about something previously and would still be interested in an answer: > > On Jan 14, 2010, at 7:08 PM, William Drake wrote: > >>> Wearing my cynical hat, this may just mean that any of the decisions that would otherwise have been made by the MAG in May will be made by the Secretariat instead, rather than submitting them to the anarchy of the open consultation meeting. >> >> How would that work? Markus' message to the MAG suggests they meet a last time next month and set the agenda for the Vilnius meeting, and the program then would be fleshed out in two open planning meetings in May and June. What decisions could the secretariat go off and make on its own without the two open planning meetings noticing, and why would it try to? I think Parminder's last message to the list addresses in noting that "in all earlier years even up to the Sept meeting program documents could be fine-tuned or even amended". Other important procedural decisions about the format and content of the meeting are often made at quite short notice, certainly later than February. -- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Jan 18 05:50:29 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:50:29 +0900 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <6EDE673D-7591-4D6A-AF72-ADBFAA913DEB@ciroap.org> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B516ABC.1080708@itforchange.net> <4B51FBC2.7020407@wzb.eu> <4B529F4E.1090200@itforchange.net> <8C6EFDC4-E1BF-4692-98C1-B037809E33E3@ciroap.org> <79DEA182-710D-4058-A394-D6E500627E5B@graduateinstitute.ch> <6EDE673D-7591-4D6A-AF72-ADBFAA913DEB@ciroap.org> Message-ID: >On 18/01/2010, at 5:52 PM, William Drake wrote: > >>Could you help me to understand your concerns >>here?  Which important decisions exactly have >>been made without reference to the MAG? >> > >A couple of examples that spring to mind are, >from the last meeting, the selection of speakers >for the "Taking Stock" session, The taking stock session was the responsibility of UN DESA, on behalf of the Secretary General. My understanding is it was not a MAG process and had never been presented as such. Think it was always the responsibility of DESA, probably announced at the September meeting, perhaps our MAG members could confirm? Thanks, Adam >and from Rio, the decision not to allow the >Webcasting tool that the Brazilian Ministry of >Culture had developed to be used to display >(even pre-vetted) comments from the Internet in >main sessions.  I can provide more examples, but >I'm replying quickly for now. > >>I'm not privy to its internal deliberations, >>but as an outsider had thought that the MAG >>approves the program, main session speakers, >>etc.  If that's not true and the MAG has been >>bypassed and had its authority eroded, have its >>members objected about this? >> > >This doesn't happen because it isn't so much a >case of trespassing on the MAG's authority, as >circumscribing its authority very narrowly and >treating it as something that shouldn't be >questioned.  The attitude is rather one of, >"Obviously, remote participation questions are >matters for the Secretariat alone to decide - >how could it possibly be otherwise?" > >>BTW, in a related vein, I'd ask you about >>something previously and would still be >>interested in an answer: >> >>On Jan 14, 2010, at 7:08 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >>>>Wearing my cynical hat, this may just mean >>>>that any of the decisions that would >>>>otherwise have been made by the MAG in May >>>>will be made by the Secretariat instead, >>>>rather than submitting them to the anarchy of >>>>the open consultation meeting.   >>>> >>> >>>How would that work?  Markus' message to the >>>MAG suggests they meet a last time next month >>>and set the agenda for the Vilnius meeting, >>>and the program then would be fleshed out in >>>two open planning meetings in May and June. >>> What decisions could the secretariat go off >>>and make on its own without the two open >>>planning meetings noticing, and why would it >>>try to? >>> > >I think Parminder's last message to the list >addresses in noting that "in all earlier years >even up to the Sept meeting program documents >could be fine-tuned or even amended".  Other >important procedural decisions about the format >and content of the meeting are often made at >quite short notice, certainly later than >February. > >-- > >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 jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Jan 18 06:05:30 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:05:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <8C6EFDC4-E1BF-4692-98C1-B037809E33E3@ciroap.org> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B516ABC.1080708@itforchange.net> <4B51FBC2.7020407@wzb.eu> <4B529F4E.1090200@itforchange.net> <8C6EFDC4-E1BF-4692-98C1-B037809E33E3@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B54407A.4030602@wzb.eu> > Parminder has (as usual) voiced my concerns more eloquently than I > earlier did. Even while there has been a MAG meeting three times a > year, important decisions have still been made without reference to it. > I worry that, as little authority as the MAG has been allowed as it is, > the Secretariat is at least likely to let it out on a longer leash than > the open consultation meeting. In my personal (non-coordinator) view, > management of the IGF is a case where some (accountable, transparent) > hierarchical structure is needed. As we perhaps all know by now, the MAG doesn't have any formal authority. Decisions are taken by the UNSG, and this is where, in my view, accountability for the IGF lies. To open up the preparatory part of the IGF to those who organize workshops and are involved in main sessions is a very good thing in my view. I think we will have a hard time to make non-civil society people understand why we would opt for more rather than less hierarchy and closed rather than open processes. I don't think that keeping the preparatory stage of the IGF closed has any direct impact on the authority or responsibility of the MAG. I find it unfortunate to relate these two issues. jeanette > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement > in 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect > consumer rights around the world. > _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_ > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 18 06:22:06 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:52:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <79DEA182-710D-4058-A394-D6E500627E5B@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B516ABC.1080708@itforchange.net> <4B51FBC2.7020407@wzb.eu> <4B529F4E.1090200@itforchange.net> <8C6EFDC4-E1BF-4692-98C1-B037809E33E3@ciroap.org> <79DEA182-710D-4058-A394-D6E500627E5B@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4B54445E.4050408@itforchange.net> Hi Bill William Drake wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:39 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> Even while there has been a MAG meeting three times a year, >> important decisions have still been made without reference to it. I >> worry that, as little authority as the MAG has been allowed as it is, >> the Secretariat is at least likely to let it out on a longer leash >> than the open consultation meeting. In my personal (non-coordinator) >> view, management of the IGF is a case where some (accountable, >> transparent) hierarchical structure is needed. > > Could you help me to understand your concerns here? Which important > decisions exactly have been made without reference to the MAG? While Jeremy has spoken of important decisions having been taken without reference to the MAG, I must reaffirm that my principal issue is with erosion of decision making capacity of the IGF resulting in overall less decision-making and therefore lesser possibilities of doing many things that we expect IGF/ MAG to do. > I'm open to persuasion that I'm missing something, but at present > most of the aspects of IGF I wish were different are not the result of > the MAG having too little influence, needing a longer leash, etc. What aspects are these, that you wish were different? i ask because, I think, from what I have heard from you and also from IGC statements - things like working groups, background papers, inter-sessional work, better structuring and perhaps outputs - all or most such aspects depends on adequate decision making capacity of the MAG, isnt it. Or how else do you think these aspects/ functions can even be started to be addressed? 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 18 06:38:29 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:08:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B54407A.4030602@wzb.eu> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B516ABC.1080708@itforchange.net> <4B51FBC2.7020407@wzb.eu> <4B529F4E.1090200@itforchange.net> <8C6EFDC4-E1BF-4692-98C1-B037809E33E3@ciroap.org> <4B54407A.4030602@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B544835.2010103@itforchange.net> Hi Jeanette Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > >> Parminder has (as usual) voiced my concerns more eloquently than I >> earlier did. Even while there has been a MAG meeting three times a >> year, important decisions have still been made without reference to >> it. I worry that, as little authority as the MAG has been allowed as >> it is, the Secretariat is at least likely to let it out on a longer >> leash than the open consultation meeting. In my personal >> (non-coordinator) view, management of the IGF is a case where some >> (accountable, transparent) hierarchical structure is needed. > > As we perhaps all know by now, the MAG doesn't have any formal > authority. Decisions are taken by the UNSG, and this is where, in my > view, accountability for the IGF lies. Does this mean that we dispense with whatever authority - hard of soft - MAG even has got now? I did not get the logic. Also since we are discussing what we want, the issue is whether we want UNSG to make all decisions by itself, or be strongly influenced by the advise of , and in that way be accountable to, a representative multistakeholder group - and through it be accountable to different stakeholders. I ask specifically, what is your stand on this? > > To open up the preparatory part of the IGF to those who organize > workshops and are involved in main sessions is a very good thing in my > view. I think we will have a hard time to make non-civil society > people understand why we would opt for more rather than less hierarchy > and closed rather than open processes. > > I don't think that keeping the preparatory stage of the IGF closed has > any direct impact on the authority or responsibility of the MAG. I > find it unfortunate to relate these two issues. I find it even more unfortunate. I do not know why after so much explanation it is still being projected that somehow we want more closed MAG processes. I have kept saying we *do* want MAG processes to be more open, and include greater outside participation. Jeremy also nowhere said he wants them closed, did he. (In fact I know that he has been seeking that MAG works on a publicly open e-list while, very significantly, many of those who now are ready to experiment with dispensing MAG did not support such a proposal. Chatham house rule has been such a loved term. So who is for more openness?) What we have been saying is to preserve the decision-making capacity of MAG and not foreclose it. We have also said that if MAG is not there to actually convert stakeholder's views into actual decisions, there is little point in increasing participation, when, as you say, in any case UNSG will decide whatever he wishes to. Parminder > > jeanette >> >> -- >> >> *Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator* >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >> Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> *CI is 50* >> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer >> movement in 2010. >> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect >> consumer rights around the world. >> _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_ >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 18 06:49:15 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:49:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B54407A.4030602@wzb.eu> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B516ABC.1080708@itforchange.net> <4B51FBC2.7020407@wzb.eu> <4B529F4E.1090200@itforchange.net> <8C6EFDC4-E1BF-4692-98C1-B037809E33E3@ciroap.org> <4B54407A.4030602@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <+JBPLte7qEVLFAJt@perry.co.uk> In message <4B54407A.4030602 at wzb.eu>, at 11:05:30 on Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Jeanette Hofmann writes >As we perhaps all know by now, the MAG doesn't have any formal >authority. Decisions are taken by the UNSG, and this is where, in my >view, accountability for the IGF lies. Perhaps some people confuse the MAG with the concept of a "Bureau" originally mentioned in the Tunis Agenda. Does the MAG even present an independently negotiated consensus (as a deliverable) to UNSG, or is it a set of independent views from which UNSG draws a conclusion? -- 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 Mon Jan 18 07:00:36 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:00:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <+JBPLte7qEVLFAJt@perry.co.uk> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B516ABC.1080708@itforchange.net> <4B51FBC2.7020407@wzb.eu> <4B529F4E.1090200@itforchange.net> <8C6EFDC4-E1BF-4692-98C1-B037809E33E3@ciroap.org> <4B54407A.4030602@wzb.eu> <+JBPLte7qEVLFAJt@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B544D64.3020808@wzb.eu> Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4B54407A.4030602 at wzb.eu>, at 11:05:30 on Mon, 18 Jan 2010, > Jeanette Hofmann writes > >> As we perhaps all know by now, the MAG doesn't have any formal >> authority. Decisions are taken by the UNSG, and this is where, in my >> view, accountability for the IGF lies. > > Perhaps some people confuse the MAG with the concept of a "Bureau" > originally mentioned in the Tunis Agenda. > > Does the MAG even present an independently negotiated consensus (as a > deliverable) to UNSG, or is it a set of independent views from which > UNSG draws a conclusion? The way it usually works is that the chair sends report to New York which summarizes the discussions of the MAG. The report is part of the black box. We don't know exactly how the chair summarizes the debates and what he recommends the UNSG to do. However, the concluding remarks of the chair probably give a good picture of his take on certain issues. I feel somewhat uneasy about this procedure because it depends to a large extent on the integrity of the chair. Should the MAG get a chair with a less developed sense of fairness and balance, this type of black-boxed process wouldn't work at all. On the other hand, black-boxing part of the process was important in the early stage of the MAG when its membership couldn't agree on much. The chair's reports helped to find compromises and somehow strengthened the trust in the process. jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Mon Jan 18 07:48:50 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:48:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B54445E.4050408@itforchange.net> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B516ABC.1080708@itforchange.net> <4B51FBC2.7020407@wzb.eu> <4B529F4E.1090200@itforchange.net> <8C6EFDC4-E1BF-4692-98C1-B037809E33E3@ciroap.org> <79DEA182-710D-4058-A394-D6E500627E5B@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B54445E.4050408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder On Jan 18, 2010, at 12:22 PM, Parminder wrote: > Hi Bill > > William Drake wrote: >> Hi Jeremy, >> >> On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:39 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> Even while there has been a MAG meeting three times a year, important decisions have still been made without reference to it. I worry that, as little authority as the MAG has been allowed as it is, the Secretariat is at least likely to let it out on a longer leash than the open consultation meeting. In my personal (non-coordinator) view, management of the IGF is a case where some (accountable, transparent) hierarchical structure is needed. >> >> Could you help me to understand your concerns here? Which important decisions exactly have been made without reference to the MAG? > > While Jeremy has spoken of important decisions having been taken without reference to the MAG, I must reaffirm that my principal issue is with erosion of decision making capacity of the IGF resulting in overall less decision-making and therefore lesser possibilities of doing many things that we expect IGF/ MAG to do. Right, I understand you'd like IGF to be more of a decision making body. But that's not the same thing as saying that the MAG has in the past been bypassed with respect to those functions that are under its purview, within the overall framework, as Jeanette points out, of the UNSG's authority. Again, I have not seen any significant evidence that it's been unduly marginalized to date (a poorly handled Taking Stock session and one decision about an online platform notwithstanding), or evidence that this has been of broad concern to CS. I could see an argument that MAG needs to improve its working methods, be more transparent, and reach earlier and better decisions about the program (my notion of what that'd mean admittedly may be idiosyncratic...we all have our preferences), but that's not a strength issue. > >> I'm open to persuasion that I'm missing something, but at present most of the aspects of IGF I wish were different are not the result of the MAG having too little influence, needing a longer leash, etc. > What aspects are these, that you wish were different? i ask because, I think, from what I have heard from you and also from IGC statements - things like working groups, background papers, inter-sessional work, better structuring and perhaps outputs - all or most such aspects depends on adequate decision making capacity of the MAG, isnt it. Or how else do you think these aspects/ functions can even be started to be addressed? Well, like others I'm sure, my thinking has evolved in light of experience. At the UNICT forum on IG in NYC March 04 I gave a talk, and then wrote a chapter in Don MacLean's book, that inter alia suggested the need for a new multistakeholder arrangement with a holistic, cross-cutting mandate and (let me open and dust off the file) that 'a potentially attractive model to build off of might be the OECD, or rather its Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy. Relevant elements of this model include: a small and expert research staff that produces highly regarded reports on Internet and related issues; ongoing dialogue and regularly scheduled meetings, rather than occasional one-off events with variable attendance; a single, convenient location for meetings, rather than world roaming assemblages; a broad mandate, continually reviewed and agreed; and normally, a reliance on “soft law” instruments such as declarations, recommendations, and guidelines.' However, I noted that politically this wouldn't fly given the diversity of interests among relevant power centers, so as a fall back suggested creation of 'a multistakeholder mechanism restricted to the monitoring, analytical, and information-sharing functions. By tracking developments across the Internet governance terrain, drawing attention to gaps and generalizable lessons, and providing the sort of multi-perspective assessment that is often lacking in more narrowly mandated arrangements, such a mechanism could enrich the dialogue and provide helpful inputs into other processes tasked with actual decision making. It would be especially useful to non-dominant stakeholders like developing countries, CSOs, and SMEs that already have difficulties monitoring and assessing governance processes, but other stakeholders could find it to be value-adding as well. A small, nimble, and well-connected secretariat supported by virtual networks of organizations and individuals could perform these tasks effectively.' Whatever, neither path was followed and and they aren't going to be, and subsequent experience has led me to doubt whether the 'soft law' approach would be advisable, particularly given the highly regulatory orientations governments around the world are pursuing. I still think the cross-cutting monitoring, analytical, and information-sharing functions (especially with respect to transparency, inclusion, development, my usuals) and inputs into other processes tasked with actual decision making would be useful additions. Both activities could still be pursued by participants in the IGF (as opposed to the IGF per se). Alas, the former would require resources and capacities which are not available, so the best one can hope for is some piecemeal initiatives, e.g. the APC/COE/UNECE effort, a development agenda collaboration, etc. The latter is partially addressed in other ways, e.g. CS and other non-state participation in ICANN, OECD, etc. (BTW, ICANN's public comment period on the AoC closes 31 January) In sum, I don't see a rationale for a stronger MAG within the current framework of an annual space for debate, what of real world consequence this would improve. But sure, if the whole set-up and mission were different, of course one would want a solid (which might not mean 'stronger') multistakeholder body working closely with the secretariat. Best, 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 18 08:06:11 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:36:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B516ABC.1080708@itforchange.net> <4B51FBC2.7020407@wzb.eu> <4B529F4E.1090200@itforchange.net> <8C6EFDC4-E1BF-4692-98C1-B037809E33E3@ciroap.org> <79DEA182-710D-4058-A394-D6E500627E5B@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B54445E.4050408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B545CC3.1060004@itforchange.net> >> >> While Jeremy has spoken of important decisions having been taken >> without reference to the MAG, I must reaffirm that my principal issue >> is with erosion of decision making capacity of the IGF resulting in >> overall less decision-making and therefore lesser possibilities of >> doing many things that we expect IGF/ MAG to do. > > Right, I understand you'd like IGF to be more of a decision making body. Sorry, it was a mistype.... i meant to say, 'erosion in the decision making capacity of the MAG' (which is what I have been arguing) and not the IGF... (I know that is a big mistype :( ) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 18 08:40:34 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:10:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B516ABC.1080708@itforchange.net> <4B51FBC2.7020407@wzb.eu> <4B529F4E.1090200@itforchange.net> <8C6EFDC4-E1BF-4692-98C1-B037809E33E3@ciroap.org> <79DEA182-710D-4058-A394-D6E500627E5B@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B54445E.4050408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B5464D2.3000609@itforchange.net> William Drake wrote: > I could see an argument that MAG needs to improve its working > methods, be more transparent, and reach earlier and better decisions > about the program (my notion of what that'd mean admittedly may be > idiosyncratic...we all have our preferences), but that's not a > strength issue. It is still a issue of MAG existing and being able to do something in its name through out the year, isnt it. That alone is at stake in the present context, of the proposal Jeanette made and also referred to as 'do-we-even-need-the-MAG experiment. > I still think the cross-cutting monitoring, analytical, > and information-sharing functions (especially with respect to > transparency, inclusion, development, my usuals) and inputs into > other processes tasked with actual decision making would be useful > additions. Both activities could still be pursued by participants in > the IGF (as opposed to the IGF per se). Alas, the former would > require resources and capacities which are not available, so the best > one can hope for is some piecemeal initiatives, e.g. the APC/COE/UNECE > effort, a development agenda collaboration, etc. The latter is > partially addressed in other ways, e.g. CS and other non-state > participation in ICANN, OECD, etc. (BTW, ICANN's public comment period > on the AoC closes 31 January) But the problem is; ICANN, by its own projection, does narrow technical policy, and OECD isnt representative though its work affects everyone, more so in the absence of a global Internet policy system. That keeps the problem of ensuring IG is done in public interest unsolved at least for participants from non OECD countries . > > In sum, I don't see a rationale for a stronger MAG within the current > framework of an annual space for debate, what of real world > consequence this would improve. This can be taken as a expression of a basic failure of the IGF, which is why you wouldnt be enthusiastic about what happens to the MAG. Well, I can have some sympathy for that view. But that is not where the proponents of the present proposal come from. > But sure, if the whole set-up and mission were different, of course > one would want a solid (which might not mean > 'stronger') multistakeholder body working closely with the secretariat. What would that set-up and mission be in your view? Well, you may have lost hope (and perhaps for good reason) but others may still be trying that the IGF could amount to something more than an annual conference (especially those less enthusiastic about the other forums you mentioned ICANN, OECD etc). As for the difference between 'more solid' and 'stronger', it may only be my poor English that I cant make much difference between the two :) . On the other hand, for the present, I only sought that MAG just does keep existing in the same fashion as at present Parminder > > 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 avri at psg.com Mon Jan 18 09:37:59 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:37:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <6EDE673D-7591-4D6A-AF72-ADBFAA913DEB@ciroap.org> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B516ABC.1080708@itforchange.net> <4B51FBC2.7020407@wzb.eu> <4B529F4E.1090200@itforchange.net> <8C6EFDC4-E1BF-4692-98C1-B037809E33E3@ciroap.org> <79DEA182-710D-4058-A394-D6E500627E5B@graduateinstitute.ch> <6EDE673D-7591-4D6A-AF72-ADBFAA913DEB@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <014ABC10-5B00-4788-8F01-0BB722D204FD@psg.com> On 18 Jan 2010, at 05:30, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > "Obviously, remote participation questions are matters for the Secretariat alone to decide - how could it possibly be otherwise?" Because it is otherwise? Since the host has to provide the facilities, the host chooses the means. A lot of the physical venue decisions and such are made by the hosts. The secretariat contributes requirements, but the host deals with them in its own way. That is why we have had a different solution each year. 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Mon Jan 18 09:41:26 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:41:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B5464D2.3000609@itforchange.net> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B516ABC.1080708@itforchange.net> <4B51FBC2.7020407@wzb.eu> <4B529F4E.1090200@itforchange.net> <8C6EFDC4-E1BF-4692-98C1-B037809E33E3@ciroap.org> <79DEA182-710D-4058-A394-D6E500627E5B@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B54445E.4050408@itforchange.net> <4B5464D2.3000609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <7760AE48-AC75-4E3E-A1DF-D22A3C49563D@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi again, On Jan 18, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Parminder wrote: > > William Drake wrote: >> I could see an argument that MAG needs to improve its working methods, be more transparent, and reach earlier and better decisions about the program (my notion of what that'd mean admittedly may be idiosyncratic...we all have our preferences), but that's not a strength issue. > It is still a issue of MAG existing and being able to do something in its name through out the year, isnt it. That alone is at stake in the present context, of the proposal Jeanette made and also referred to as 'do-we-even-need-the-MAG experiment. Ok sure, apparently there's an existence issue (surprises me, didn't anticipate that governments et al could be so zen); can we set aside strength then and contemplate? It would be interesting to hear an elaborated argument for non-existence to complement the non-non-existence position, might help people get their heads around this. Is anyone prepared to argue that open planning meetings could do just as well? > >> I still think the cross-cutting monitoring, analytical, and information-sharing functions (especially with respect to transparency, inclusion, development, my usuals) and inputs into other processes tasked with actual decision making would be useful additions. Both activities could still be pursued by participants in the IGF (as opposed to the IGF per se). Alas, the former would require resources and capacities which are not available, so the best one can hope for is some piecemeal initiatives, e.g. the APC/COE/UNECE effort, a development agenda collaboration, etc. The latter is partially addressed in other ways, e.g. CS and other non-state participation in ICANN, OECD, etc. (BTW, ICANN's public comment period on the AoC closes 31 January) > But the problem is; ICANN, by its own projection, does narrow technical policy, I strongly disagree and am surprised to hear you say this, but maybe we should hold that for another time. > and OECD isnt representative though its work affects everyone, more so in the absence of a global Internet policy system. Which strikes me as a pretty good argument for active engagement... > That keeps the problem of ensuring IG is done in public interest unsolved at least for participants from non OECD countries . Depends on what we're talking about, there's a variety of mechanisms and issue areas with a variable geometry of developing country participation (ICANN included). >> >> In sum, I don't see a rationale for a stronger MAG within the current framework of an annual space for debate, what of real world consequence this would improve. > This can be taken as a expression of a basic failure of the IGF, which is why you wouldnt be enthusiastic about what happens to the MAG. Well, I can have some sympathy for that view. But that is not where the proponents of the present proposal come from. Well no, one can wish the thing had been different without coming to that conclusion. I'm glad there's an IGF and think it's valuable, AND I don't feel the MAG needs to be stronger. >> But sure, if the whole set-up and mission were different, of course one would want a solid (which might not mean 'stronger') multistakeholder body working closely with the secretariat. > What would that set-up and mission be in your view? Well, you may have lost hope (and perhaps for good reason) but others may still be trying that the IGF could amount to something more than an annual conference (especially those less enthusiastic about the other forums you mentioned ICANN, OECD etc). I meant as described in the article quote, more or less. > > As for the difference between 'more solid' and 'stronger', it may only be my poor English that I cant make much difference between the two :) . On the other hand, for the present, I only sought that MAG just does keep existing in the same fashion as at present Ok, but that wasn't what Jeremy's draft says, which is where we started and what I was inquiring about. So maybe it'd be good to substitute language calling for the MAG to keep existing, if there's consensus for that. But first I and maybe others would like to hear the arguments on both sides fleshed out... 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Jan 18 10:28:49 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:28:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: PAras 3 and 4 together Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the > IGF . . > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of > stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating to the > IGF's structure and processes.  Many of the IGC's members believe that the > MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, ought to > exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions about the > future structure and processes of the IGF. We are saying the MA should have greater influence. Per Bill's question, lets have some more input to confirm this before we say it. If we don't have some (many) positive replies on this, I'd say it can be stricken. > A second aspect in which there is room for further improvement in the > accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive > agenda of IGF meetings.  Although at present this responsibility falls to > the MAG, the IGC was surprised that for instance the very strongly and > widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the > importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the > agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. Here we say, while it's up to MAG to do, we (et.al. per Ian) didn't get what we want last time. Sounds like sour grapes to me, I would strike the para. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Jan 18 10:42:13 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:42:13 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: PAras 3 and 4 together In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B548155.9090103@wzb.eu> McTim wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the >> IGF > . > . >> One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of >> stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating to the >> IGF's structure and processes. Many of the IGC's members believe that the >> MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions about the future structure and processes of the IGF >> I guess I don't really understand this paragraph. It is not precise enough. The IGF's structure (main sessions plus workshops, topics of main sessions, etc) have been developed by the MAG reflecting the input from open consultations and the necessary compromises between various views, etc. All the changes we have seen over the last years have also been suggested by the MAG. At least I don't remember any relevant exceptions. This para needs to specify what is meant by greater influence. jeanette > > We are saying the MA should have greater influence. Per Bill's > question, lets have some more input to confirm this before we say it. > If we don't have some (many) positive replies on this, I'd say it can > be stricken. > > >> A second aspect in which there is room for further improvement in the >> accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive >> agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this responsibility falls to >> the MAG, the IGC was surprised that for instance the very strongly and >> widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the >> importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the >> agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. > > Here we say, while it's up to MAG to do, we (et.al. per Ian) didn't > get what we want last time. Sounds like sour grapes to me, I would > strike the para. > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Jan 18 11:19:13 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:19:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B545CC3.1060004@itforchange.net> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B516ABC.1080708@itforchange.net> <4B51FBC2.7020407@wzb.eu> <4B529F4E.1090200@itforchange.net> <8C6EFDC4-E1BF-4692-98C1-B037809E33E3@ciroap.org> <79DEA182-710D-4058-A394-D6E500627E5B@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B54445E.4050408@itforchange.net> <4B545CC3.1060004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 18 Jan 2010, at 08:06, Parminder wrote: > i meant to say, 'erosion in the decision making capacity of the MAG' >From where I sit, I don't see this - and I have been observing since day 1. If anything i think its decision making capacity has grown. While it is true that the New York office of the UN makes the final decisions, it is the MAG that makes all the decisions regarding the program in its recommendations. And I do not know of an instance where the UNSG's offices or the DESA USG has contradicted those recommendation. I have watched the MAG carefully deliberate the options, taking into account the comments from contributions and the consultations. And even when the secretariat has made recommendations to the MAG on certain scheduling options based on its understanding from the contributions, the MAG has felt free to shoot these down or alter them, as the consensus in the MAG wished. >From my view, I have seen the MAG remain consistent in its capacity to make decisions under the consensus building leadership of its chair. Some people may not be happy when their ideas and suggestions are not adopted by the MAG, but when that has happened it has been the consensus of the MAG that made the recommendation. 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 Mon Jan 18 11:50:14 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:20:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B516ABC.1080708@itforchange.net> <4B51FBC2.7020407@wzb.eu> <4B529F4E.1090200@itforchange.net> <8C6EFDC4-E1BF-4692-98C1-B037809E33E3@ciroap.org> <79DEA182-710D-4058-A394-D6E500627E5B@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B54445E.4050408@itforchange.net> <4B545CC3.1060004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B549146.6090909@itforchange.net> Avri Doria wrote: > On 18 Jan 2010, at 08:06, Parminder wrote: > > >> i meant to say, 'erosion in the decision making capacity of the MAG' >> > > >From where I sit, I don't see this - and I have been observing since day 1. If anything i think its decision making capacity has grown. > Avri, This is said in the middle of, and strictly only with regard to, a rather intense debate regarding what has been described as do-we-even-need-a-MAG experiment. An experiment which is not just an idea but has taken a rather strong force, as you would have followed on the MAG list. The way towards checking (proving) this hypothesis is to have only one MAG meeting in Feb, and have the other two meetings only as planning meetings following the Sept 2009 'experiment'. The logic presented is that apparently we really do not need these 2nd and 3rd MAG meetings and open house assemblies would be enough. I repeat, I never said anything about erosion of the decision making capacity over the years (though decision-making capacity certainly was not there in Sept 2009, because there was no MAG meeting and in this regard nothing on the program sheet could be substantially changed, though such changes could be, and were, made till and during Sept MAG meetings in the earlier years.) My comments are strictly within the above context. And i do think that if this group primarily engages with the IGF, such an important move vis a vis the only structured element of the IGF, i.e. MAG, should evoke much greater engagement, than, in my humble opinion, has been seen on this list. It has been decided that this issue will also be put for the consideration of the open consultation in Feb. Is IGC going to make a statement on this issue? Parminder > While it is true that the New York office of the UN makes the final decisions, it is the MAG that makes all the decisions regarding the program in its recommendations. And I do not know of an instance where the UNSG's offices or the DESA USG has contradicted those recommendation. > > I have watched the MAG carefully deliberate the options, taking into account the comments from contributions and the consultations. And even when the secretariat has made recommendations to the MAG on certain scheduling options based on its understanding from the contributions, the MAG has felt free to shoot these down or alter them, as the consensus in the MAG wished. > > >From my view, I have seen the MAG remain consistent in its capacity to make decisions under the consensus building leadership of its chair. Some people may not be happy when their ideas and suggestions are not adopted by the MAG, but when that has happened it has been the consensus of the MAG that made the recommendation. > > a. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 18 12:17:13 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:47:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Internet Governance 2010: Future Of The IGF, Competition Among Institution] Message-ID: <4B549799.2050305@itforchange.net> http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog - Internet Governance 2010: Future Of The IGF, Competition Among Institutions By Monika Ermert on 15 January 2010 @ 3:39 pm The future design of the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF), the role of the UN International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in internet governance and the ability of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to resolve issues from new generic top-level domains to further internationalisation - these are the top policy issues in internet governance in 2010 and they are all linked to the question of how many governments and how much “multi-stakeholderism“ effective internet governance needs. The self-regulatory approach adhered to by the internet technical community might have been too optimistic in some regards, for example net neutrality or cybercrime issues, said internet governance expert Jeanette Hofmann from the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin and member of the Internet Governance Project. But will this lead to a backlash against the more multi-stakeholder institutions like the IGF or ICANN? For network neutrality, regulatory steps seem necessary, Hofmann said to Intellectual Property Watch about the big issues ahead. The same is true with regard to cybercrime, she said. “All this private blacklisting was pretty awful,” she said. Yet while she expects that competition between more private style governance approaches versus more public oversight approaches will continue for years, she sees the governance framework developing toward some relatively well accepted criteria. “Transparency, participation, accountability and legitimacy seems to be what will substitute for national regulatory approaches,” said Hofmann. Future of the IGF The future design of the IGF to be developed before the forum’s next meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania (14-17 September) that will end the first five-year mandate of the experimental UN body might give a hint about the current state of the play, said Hofmann. “Is the IGF allowed to stay as it is, heavily driven by private stakeholders, or will it be made a much more governmental institution?” A lot of strings are being pulled behind the scenes with regard to possible changes for the IGF 2.0, say experts and observers including Hofmann. Even how and by which UN bodies (the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), Committee on Science and Technology Development (CSTD) or the plenary) the reform should be developed is under intensive debate. Hofmann warns that a more bureaucratic structure might result in freezing further development of the body as a whole and “everybody labels standstill as failure,” she said. Proposals for organisational changes to the IGF model range from mere cosmetic to not-budget-neutral ones, according to IGF Secretary Markus Kummer, who said that some countries would prefer to align IGF procedures much more with regular UN procedures. “One idea is to structure the IGF alongside the G77 model used for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), setting up bureaus for governments, business and civil society respectively,” he said. The current Membership Advisory Committee (MAG) integrates all stakeholders groups in a more informal way. China has recommended a more official “bureau” to organise the IGF, while the European Union and the United States want to keep the more lightweight secretariat, managed by Swiss diplomat Kummer and one additional employee. One of the non-budget-neutral proposals came from the normally rather quiet one-man German IGF delegation who recommended setting up a database collecting internet governance best practices. Such a database might serve as a reference output, while at the same time avoiding the much more authoritative “messages from the IGF” that some governments like Brazil would like to see. ITU - Bigger Role in Governance Wished by Some A year ago, the ITU secretary general was highly critical of the IGF, pointing to deficiencies with resolving the dispute about core internet resources - domain names, IP addresses and the system of central root servers on the domain name system (DNS). This year, the organisation did not call into question the extension of the IGF mandate, but instead in a paper to the UN secretary general for his report on what is called “enhanced cooperation” to ECOSOC recommended itself once more for a bigger role in the internet governance arena. As the organisation is preparing for the 2010 ITU Plenipotentiary Meeting in Veracruz, Mexico (4-22 October) the ambitions while not new deserve a closer look. The plenipotentiary is the main decision-making conference of the ITU, taking place once every four years. The 2006 plenipotentiary in Antalya, Turkey, paved the way for more involvement in internet governance, so the 2010 plenipotentiary might see another round of discussions between member states that want the ITU to do more and those who want it to keep to its original task that is more focused on the classical telecommunications industry. That the ITU has an appetite for additional tasks has been made clear in the summary contained in the ECOSOC report and has already led to discussions between the secretariat and member states, said one ITU expert. “An improved governance framework could be formed within which all countries would have an equal say in internet-related public policy issues and in the management of critical internet resources,” read the summary of ITU comments in the UN secretary general’s report. “An intergovernmental organisation such as the [ITU] … could play a leading role in the creation of such a governance structure.” The ITU ECOSOC report summary lists the management of the cryptographically signed root zone of the domain name system - currently underway under the aegis of ICANN and US company VeriSign - the management of generic top-level domains (gTLDs like .com), and the management of internationalised country-code TLDs (IDN ccTLDs) as issues to be dealt with by an “intergovernmental body.” ITU representatives and consultants in addition have at a recent ITU Council meeting been pushing for the set-up of an alternative registry for next generation internet (IPv6) addresses at the ITU. The plenipotentiary also might talk about a proposal on a “Global Protocol on Cybersecurity and Cybercrime” presented by the chair of the ITU High Level Experts Group (HLEG) on Cybercrime, Norwegian Chief Judge Stein Schjolberg, during the IGF. A convention or a protocol at the UN level on this issue should be a “global proposal for the 2010s,” Schjolberg wrote in the preface to the document. He recommends a “combined initiative” by “organisations such as United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the ITU.” Institutional Competition Will Go On for Years The big appetite of the ITU is eyed with some suspicion by other international organisations and intergovernmental organisations. At the Council of Europe, Alexander Seger, who also is a member of the ITU HLEG said to /Intellectual Property Watch/ that the UN Crime Congress in April might look into the issue, yet the European Union in its new Stockholm Programme on Freedom and Security had just committed itself once more to the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime as a global standard. “In my opinion, it makes sense to first look into implementing existing legal instruments, instead of developing a new one of which you do not now how it might look in the end,” said Seger. New negotiations might delay implementation of legal measures in many countries and also divert resources for implementation, not the least in developing countries, he said. The Council of Europe, too, wants to step up its work on internet governance not only by putting resources into taking over a permanent secretariat role for the EuroDig, the European regional IGF movement, that will have its meeting in Madrid (29-30 April). According to Lee Hibbard from the Council’s Media and Information Society Division, the experts in Strasbourg are preparing a more coordinated approach to internet governance issues inside the Council, but also in the IGF regional and global forum discussions. In an interview, he described a more “holistic approach,” for example with regard to cybercrime, data protection and freedom of expression. The Council also would work on critical internet resources, namely from the human rights perspective. “Cross-border aspects of freedom of expression,” said Hibbard, are on the Council’s agenda, and even a protocol like IPv6 that could hamper access for a country without IPv6 connection is seen as more than a technical issue. Privacy in sensor networks, cloud computing or social networks also are among issues that rank high on the wider internet governance agenda, he said. The Council of Europe, according to Hibbard, hopes to finish a Council Recommendation on Profiling during the year; a fifth draft version is already under discussion. Meanwhile, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) this year celebrates the 30th year anniversary of its “Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data.” There will be several meetings to look back on the last decade and changes in privacy protection, said Sacha Wunsch-Vincent at the OECD in Paris. At the OECD, top issues include: the “smart recovery” from the economic crisis, green IT, sensor-based networks and ongoing analytical work on intermediaries, and the contribution of the internet and related ICTs as a driver of innovation as commissioned by the 2008 Seoul Declaration on the Future of the Internet were top issues, Wunsch-Vincent said. The Seoul Declaration will be revisited in 2011, he said. The OECD has been quickest with regard to adapting to the multi-stakeholder model by opening up a new Civil Society Information Society Council for the Seoul Declaration. Alas ICANN! Much of the IGF and multi-stakeholder development originates in the narrower battle around the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers which again has a bumpy road ahead of it for 2010 with meetings in Nairobi in March, Brussels in July and Latin America at the end of the year. ICANN, the global, private, but US-overseen domain-name system manager, made a little step forward answering to longstanding complaints about the privileged US oversight of its work. It got rid of the Joint Project Agreement in 2009 after more than ten years of extended contracts to the US government, and replaced it with an “Affirmation of Commitments” (AoC). Public consultation about how four review teams will be composed and selected by the ICANN Board chair/CEO and the ICANN Government Advisory Committee (GAC) chair started immediately before the New Year. The first review has to be finalised by the end of 2010 and checks on ICANN’s status in “ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global internet users.” This is the one review team where the US administration kept a special seat under the AoC. The reviews on security, stability and resiliency, on promoting competition, consumer trust and consumer choice, and on the much-debated and privacy-related Whois policy will follow with review teams bringing together six to eight people from the various ICANN constituencies. Yet governments on other continents well mentioned at the late 2009 IGF in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, that while they welcomed the AoC they saw room for further internationalisation. The US administration’s role in controlling the function currently undertaken by ICANN through the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) secures US control over the root system, the core infrastructure of the DNS. IGF Secretary Kummer said that the IANA question might become a “hot topic” in 2010 as signalled, for example, by a statement by the Egyptian Communication Minister during the IGF. On the other hand, experts expect that there is not a lot of leeway to let go of the root on the side of the US Department of Commerce despite the change of government. ICANN has ample opportunity, too, to get in more trouble this year. After years of discussion, it seemed so close to finalising the procedure for introducing new generic domains last year. But currently aspirants calculate it might be 2012 before they even can apply for these. While ICANN is hardly to blame for the push by the US government and the technical community to first introduce the new more secure DNS security extensions signatures to the root zone - the start of serving the longer, signed zone from the first root server has just been postponed for two more weeks - the just published proposal about a pre-application process called “expression of interest” looks somewhat unfriendly to less developed countries or smaller TLD applicants. Kieren McCarthy, who has left ICANN as a communications manager, commented on ICANN’s public participation site: “The logic of making it compulsory for people to sign up to a process before that process’s own rules have been finalised is also questionable. Expressions of interest should not be compulsory for the first round of new gTLDs.” McCarthy also criticised the application fee for the expressions of interest of US$55,000 dollars, which is the non-refundable part of the later application fee of US$185,000, calling it “a self-selection exercise within the existing ICANN community.” ICANN has a “duty to look beyond the few thousand individuals, companies and organisations it frequently interacts with and serve the broader internet,” he said. Trademark owners, many of whom complained during the last year about a too broad opening of the domain name space, might push to get the bar even higher. For ICANN, it will be difficult to please them all: the only question is from whom they have most to fear. Categories: Access to Knowledge, Copyright Policy, Development, English, Features, IP Policies, Information and Communications Technology/ Broadcasting, Language, Subscribers, Themes, US Policy, United Nations, Venues -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jfcallo at isocperu.org Mon Jan 18 12:26:18 2010 From: jfcallo at isocperu.org (jfcallo at isocperu.org) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:26:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] Thanks In-Reply-To: <503390.4293.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <503390.4293.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20100118122618.pf5ymji84ks04kwo@www.isocperu.org> (Spanish) Erick Dierker. Muchas gracias por su atenta respuesta. Su español es comprensible, no es feo. Muy gentil. Atentamente (English) Thank you very much for your kind response. His Spanish is understandable, it's not bad. Very nice. Sincerely Jose F. Callo Romero Secretario ISOC Peru ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Jan 18 12:28:48 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:28:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010, Message-ID: I've read a lot of thread-thoughts today regarding MAG, and learned more about the process. It seems to me that the Secretariat (Chair) summarizes the discussions of the MAG and makes recommendation to the UNSG. So in a sense the Secretariat is a Chef, to my way of thinking, the more ingredients available (the more divers the MAG is), the more creative-freedom the Secretariat has to create & summarize the venue with. Aside we are subject too the mental cap of a few people. Stay the Course ... The Secretariat & the UNSG have to 'Think inside the Box' due mostly to the contingencies surrounding them. I beg this years MAG, not to make mistakes like last-years (The China/Rights thing). Those kind of issues-becoming-incidents will push the IGF/IGC into the hands of the ITU. Because players like the Secretariat & the UNSG need to stay within their Box. This is a warning. (Don't push so hard, or your going to kill US) I think now is the time to discuss; What is 'safe' for the IGC to present Forum upon and what is not. I think we should discuss a Strategy & Argument that straightens the our hold on the IGF, over that of the ITU. I think we should show/illustrate that the IGC is an 'organized-and-collective' diverse Group, being the 'Proof MAG Works' [I also belive 'Jeremy' has the seat & brains to do this, and has my support] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 18 12:38:16 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:38:16 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: Para 5 Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the > IGF > The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation towards > the development of tangible outputs, do we? is there consensus on this? I am happy that the IGF publishes its proceedings as per the TA, but see nowhere in the TA the words "tangible outcomes", or anything remotely similar. even if these do not amount to > recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members > would support outputs of such kinds).  Whatever form its outputs take, > efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant > external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through publications on > the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. This last sentence is just filler, no? Of course any outputs would go on the website or be put into press releases. What am I missing here? -- 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Jan 18 12:56:03 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:56:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] The 4 different discussions regarding the MAG Message-ID: <954259bd1001180956l33e1961al27d2844141f30ee9@mail.gmail.com> Dar all, Following the intense exchanges on the list in the past week regarding the MAG, it may be useful to clarify the four different (albeit complementary) issues that are being discussed, in order to avoid mixing them together. This could hopefully help structure further discussions and avoid distracting the list from the more pressing task of finalizing the IGC contribution for February (see comment at the end). The four issues are : *1) Modalities for Vilnius preparation : new MAG or not ?* What started the discussion was a proposal for specific modalities for the preparation of the Vilnius IGF. The tradition was to have the MAG installed in May and remaining until February to deal with the stock-taking session on the previous IGF. But the Vilnius IGF will take place in September, earlier than previous IGFs, and it will be the last of the first serie of five. The question was therefore : is it worth going through the whole process of MAG renewal (1/3) for such a limited period of time (one meeting in May), given in addition the decision to be made regarding the continuation of the IGF itself ? Merely maintaining the 2009 MAG was one simple option, with maybe the mere replacement of "natural rotation", ie people leaving their MAG position for one reason or the other. Markus Kummer in addition felt that an additional planning meeting could be added in June and suggested that the same format as the one used in September 2009 meeting for finalizing Sharm El Sheikh could be used. This format, open to willing participants, could be called a MAG +. Are IGC members comfortable with a MAG 2009 reconduction with "natural rotation" for February and two MAG+ meetings (in the same format as September 2009) for May and June ? An alternative could be *2) Does this hint at a suppression of the MAG in the furture ?* Some concern have been raised that this could point towards a suppression of the MAG altogether in the coming years, once the IGF is continued. I understood nothing of the sort in the discussions. The creation of the MAG as a multi-stakeholder structure shaping the Agenda and working methods of the IGF (on the basis of broader consultations) should be considered one of the positive "acquis" of the last five years and most actors want it preserved. In addition, there is a valid argument regarding the capacity for certain actors to get funding if they are part of a MAG, that they would not get for more amorphous open meetings. The discussion on the governance list has clearly demonstrated strong support for the existence of a MAG. It is an innovative structure than can of course be improved. But nothing indicates that the Secretariat has any intention to suppress it. No conspiracy theory here. *3) What are / should be the "powers" of the MAG ?* This is a third issue, and it is worth exploring. The current functioning can probably be summarized as follows : on the basis of the lessons from the previous event, the MAG in the February meeting outlines the main structure of the next IGF and does a preliminary identification of the general theme, the general structure of the event (number, length and format of the main sessions) and the labels of the main sessions. This often raises interesting political discussions and produces formulations that are acceptable to all, but give some more detailed focus on one specific angle for each session. The preliminary thematic structure is usually circulated for comments and refined by the MAG after the May consultations. The final composition of the panels (if any) is determined ideally during the September meeting, and usually up to the last minute :-) Last September, the panel composition and the choice of moderators was prepared in an open format (that is proposed again this year). This is how the self-organizing nature of the IGF has produced a progressive refining of the themes. From the relatively neutral four themes of Athens (the so-called SODA Agenda : Security, Openness, Diversity and Access) , we have progressively evolved into the themes addressed in Sharm, that included : Critical Internet Resources; Security, Openness and Privacy; IG in the light of WSIS Principles and an emerging issues session on Social Media. Vilnius can continue this trend and it is up to the MAG to do it in a balanced way. Valid discussions have emerged on the list regarding the real powers of the MAG (vs the Secretariat or UN DESA) and whether they should be further increased. This deserves more discussions in the perspective of the continuation of the IGF. *(It is important to note however that the organization of the consultations on the continuation of the IGF in Sharm el Sheikh were out of the responsibility of the 2009 MAG and entirely under the leadership of DESA, in application of Article 76 of the Tunis Agenda)*. But in this discussion, it could be interesting to distinguish more clearly between a) the general Agenda-setting function (which is a major purpose of the MAG closed sessions, and probably one of the main reasons for keeping a MAG) and b) the choice of panelists that can benefit from a broader, more open interaction. For Vilinus, in order to reduce the overall number of workshops, the MAG could also envisage identifying a few sub-themes of the main sessions, to be discussed in dedicated workshops that it would initiate and call the relevant stakeholders to co-organize (see French contribution previously posted). *4) The composition and nomination of the MAG* This is a fourth thread, certainly important, as questions of improved balance between stakeholders, modes of designation and role of the UN Secretary General in the nomination (the black-box mechanism) could usefully be addressed when looking forward towards the next five years. Here again, valid views have been exchanged, with strong political undertones (in the positive sense) and the potential for innovation should be fully explored (as mentioned by Wolfgang). _______________ I hope this post helps clarify the range of issues. Maybe our co-moderators could help structure future discussions around these four threads. The first Thread (modalities for Vilnius) needs to be continued right now and the three other ones could benefit from *a short summary of the recent discussion by our co-moderators*, in order to allow a broader but more structured discussion. I often noted that the IGC list bursts into a frenzy of contributions whenever some statement has to be prepared, often veering into parallel or divergent threads, and the arguments then peter out, only to be rehashed later in another burst. These topics are important and it is useful, every now and then, to try and summarize the different positions, to help the discussion move forward. I hope this helps. Best Bertrand For -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From francois.ullmann at ingenieursdumonde.org Mon Jan 18 13:07:38 2010 From: francois.ullmann at ingenieursdumonde.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Ullmann) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:07:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] The 4 different discussions regarding the MAG In-Reply-To: <954259bd1001180956l33e1961al27d2844141f30ee9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1263838058-955cd3d15be7651481a698e3e57dd897@ingenieursdumonde.org> I agree with Bertrand's pertinent statement Best regards Dr. Francois Ullmann president of www.ingenieursdumonde.org ----- Message d'origine ----- De: Bertrand de La Chapelle Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:56:03 +0100 Sujet: [governance] The 4 different discussions regarding the MAG À: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Jeremy Malcolm , Parminder , Jeanette Hofmann , Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Dar all, Following the intense exchanges on the list in the past week regarding the MAG, it may be useful to clarify the four different (albeit complementary) issues that are being discussed, in order to avoid mixing them together. This could hopefully help structure further discussions and avoid distracting the list from the more pressing task of finalizing the IGC contribution for February (see comment at the end). The four issues are : 1) Modalities for Vilnius preparation : new MAG or not ? What started the discussion was a proposal for specific modalities for the preparation of the Vilnius IGF. The tradition was to have the MAG installed in May and remaining until February to deal with the stock-taking session on the previous IGF. But the Vilnius IGF will take place in September, earlier than previous IGFs, and it will be the last of the first serie of five. The question was therefore : is it worth going through the whole process of MAG renewal (1/3) for such a limited period of time (one meeting in May), given in addition the decision to be made regarding the continuation of the IGF itself ? Merely maintaining the 2009 MAG was one simple option, with maybe the mere replacement of "natural rotation", ie people leaving their MAG position for one reason or the other. Markus Kummer in addition felt that an additional planning meeting could be added in June and suggested that the same format as the one used in September 2009 meeting for finalizing Sharm El Sheikh could be used. This format, open to willing participants, could be called a MAG +. Are IGC members comfortable with a MAG 2009 reconduction with "natural rotation" for February and two MAG+ meetings (in the same format as September 2009) for May and June ? An alternative could be 2) Does this hint at a suppression of the MAG in the furture ? Some concern have been raised that this could point towards a suppression of the MAG altogether in the coming years, once the IGF is continued. I understood nothing of the sort in the discussions. The creation of the MAG as a multi-stakeholder structure shaping the Agenda and working methods of the IGF (on the basis of broader consultations) should be considered one of the positive "acquis" of the last five years and most actors want it preserved. In addition, there is a valid argument regarding the capacity for certain actors to get funding if they are part of a MAG, that they would not get for more amorphous open meetings. The discussion on the governance list has clearly demonstrated strong support for the existence of a MAG. It is an innovative structure than can of course be improved. But nothing indicates that the Secretariat has any intention to suppress it. No conspiracy theory here. 3) What are / should be the "powers" of the MAG ? This is a third issue, and it is worth exploring. The current functioning can probably be summarized as follows : on the basis of the lessons from the previous event, the MAG in the February meeting outlines the main structure of the next IGF and does a preliminary identification of the general theme, the general structure of the event (number, length and format of the main sessions) and the labels of the main sessions. This often raises interesting political discussions and produces formulations that are acceptable to all, but give some more detailed focus on one specific angle for each session. The preliminary thematic structure is usually circulated for comments and refined by the MAG after the May consultations. The final composition of the panels (if any) is determined ideally during the September meeting, and usually up to the last minute :-) Last September, the panel composition and the choice of moderators was prepared in an open format (that is proposed again this year). This is how the self-organizing nature of the IGF has produced a progressive refining of the themes. From the relatively neutral four themes of Athens (the so-called SODA Agenda : Security, Openness, Diversity and Access) , we have progressively evolved into the themes addressed in Sharm, that included : Critical Internet Resources; Security, Openness and Privacy; IG in the light of WSIS Principles and an emerging issues session on Social Media. Vilnius can continue this trend and it is up to the MAG to do it in a balanced way. Valid discussions have emerged on the list regarding the real powers of the MAG (vs the Secretariat or UN DESA) and whether they should be further increased. This deserves more discussions in the perspective of the continuation of the IGF. (It is important to note however that the organization of the consultations on the continuation of the IGF in Sharm el Sheikh were out of the responsibility of the 2009 MAG and entirely under the leadership of DESA, in application of Article 76 of the Tunis Agenda). But in this discussion, it could be interesting to distinguish more clearly between a) the general Agenda-setting function (which is a major purpose of the MAG closed sessions, and probably one of the main reasons for keeping a MAG) and b) the choice of panelists that can benefit from a broader, more open interaction. For Vilinus, in order to reduce the overall number of workshops, the MAG could also envisage identifying a few sub-themes of the main sessions, to be discussed in dedicated workshops that it would initiate and call the relevant stakeholders to co-organize (see French contribution previously posted). 4) The composition and nomination of the MAG This is a fourth thread, certainly important, as questions of improved balance between stakeholders, modes of designation and role of the UN Secretary General in the nomination (the black-box mechanism) could usefully be addressed when looking forward towards the next five years. Here again, valid views have been exchanged, with strong political undertones (in the positive sense) and the potential for innovation should be fully explored (as mentioned by Wolfgang). _______________ I hope this post helps clarify the range of issues. Maybe our co-moderators could help structure future discussions around these four threads. The first Thread (modalities for Vilnius) needs to be continued right now and the three other ones could benefit from a short summary of the recent discussion by our co-moderators, in order to allow a broader but more structured discussion. I often noted that the IGC list bursts into a frenzy of contributions whenever some statement has to be prepared, often veering into parallel or divergent threads, and the arguments then peter out, only to be rehashed later in another burst. These topics are important and it is useful, every now and then, to try and summarize the different positions, to help the discussion move forward. I hope this helps. Best Bertrand For -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From francois.ullmann at ingenieursdumonde.org Mon Jan 18 13:08:29 2010 From: francois.ullmann at ingenieursdumonde.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Ullmann) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:08:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] The 4 different discussions regarding the MAG In-Reply-To: <954259bd1001180956l33e1961al27d2844141f30ee9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1263838109-7199e3b7fdb476c8c6928d75283ec310@ingenieursdumonde.org> I agree with Bertrand's pertinent statement Best regards Dr. Francois Ullmann president of www.ingenieursdumonde.org ----- Message d'origine ----- De: Bertrand de La Chapelle Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:56:03 +0100 Sujet: [governance] The 4 different discussions regarding the MAG À: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Jeremy Malcolm , Parminder , Jeanette Hofmann , Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Dar all, Following the intense exchanges on the list in the past week regarding the MAG, it may be useful to clarify the four different (albeit complementary) issues that are being discussed, in order to avoid mixing them together. This could hopefully help structure further discussions and avoid distracting the list from the more pressing task of finalizing the IGC contribution for February (see comment at the end). The four issues are : 1) Modalities for Vilnius preparation : new MAG or not ? What started the discussion was a proposal for specific modalities for the preparation of the Vilnius IGF. The tradition was to have the MAG installed in May and remaining until February to deal with the stock-taking session on the previous IGF. But the Vilnius IGF will take place in September, earlier than previous IGFs, and it will be the last of the first serie of five. The question was therefore : is it worth going through the whole process of MAG renewal (1/3) for such a limited period of time (one meeting in May), given in addition the decision to be made regarding the continuation of the IGF itself ? Merely maintaining the 2009 MAG was one simple option, with maybe the mere replacement of "natural rotation", ie people leaving their MAG position for one reason or the other. Markus Kummer in addition felt that an additional planning meeting could be added in June and suggested that the same format as the one used in September 2009 meeting for finalizing Sharm El Sheikh could be used. This format, open to willing participants, could be called a MAG +. Are IGC members comfortable with a MAG 2009 reconduction with "natural rotation" for February and two MAG+ meetings (in the same format as September 2009) for May and June ? An alternative could be 2) Does this hint at a suppression of the MAG in the furture ? Some concern have been raised that this could point towards a suppression of the MAG altogether in the coming years, once the IGF is continued. I understood nothing of the sort in the discussions. The creation of the MAG as a multi-stakeholder structure shaping the Agenda and working methods of the IGF (on the basis of broader consultations) should be considered one of the positive "acquis" of the last five years and most actors want it preserved. In addition, there is a valid argument regarding the capacity for certain actors to get funding if they are part of a MAG, that they would not get for more amorphous open meetings. The discussion on the governance list has clearly demonstrated strong support for the existence of a MAG. It is an innovative structure than can of course be improved. But nothing indicates that the Secretariat has any intention to suppress it. No conspiracy theory here. 3) What are / should be the "powers" of the MAG ? This is a third issue, and it is worth exploring. The current functioning can probably be summarized as follows : on the basis of the lessons from the previous event, the MAG in the February meeting outlines the main structure of the next IGF and does a preliminary identification of the general theme, the general structure of the event (number, length and format of the main sessions) and the labels of the main sessions. This often raises interesting political discussions and produces formulations that are acceptable to all, but give some more detailed focus on one specific angle for each session. The preliminary thematic structure is usually circulated for comments and refined by the MAG after the May consultations. The final composition of the panels (if any) is determined ideally during the September meeting, and usually up to the last minute :-) Last September, the panel composition and the choice of moderators was prepared in an open format (that is proposed again this year). This is how the self-organizing nature of the IGF has produced a progressive refining of the themes. From the relatively neutral four themes of Athens (the so-called SODA Agenda : Security, Openness, Diversity and Access) , we have progressively evolved into the themes addressed in Sharm, that included : Critical Internet Resources; Security, Openness and Privacy; IG in the light of WSIS Principles and an emerging issues session on Social Media. Vilnius can continue this trend and it is up to the MAG to do it in a balanced way. Valid discussions have emerged on the list regarding the real powers of the MAG (vs the Secretariat or UN DESA) and whether they should be further increased. This deserves more discussions in the perspective of the continuation of the IGF. (It is important to note however that the organization of the consultations on the continuation of the IGF in Sharm el Sheikh were out of the responsibility of the 2009 MAG and entirely under the leadership of DESA, in application of Article 76 of the Tunis Agenda). But in this discussion, it could be interesting to distinguish more clearly between a) the general Agenda-setting function (which is a major purpose of the MAG closed sessions, and probably one of the main reasons for keeping a MAG) and b) the choice of panelists that can benefit from a broader, more open interaction. For Vilinus, in order to reduce the overall number of workshops, the MAG could also envisage identifying a few sub-themes of the main sessions, to be discussed in dedicated workshops that it would initiate and call the relevant stakeholders to co-organize (see French contribution previously posted). 4) The composition and nomination of the MAG This is a fourth thread, certainly important, as questions of improved balance between stakeholders, modes of designation and role of the UN Secretary General in the nomination (the black-box mechanism) could usefully be addressed when looking forward towards the next five years. Here again, valid views have been exchanged, with strong political undertones (in the positive sense) and the potential for innovation should be fully explored (as mentioned by Wolfgang). _______________ I hope this post helps clarify the range of issues. Maybe our co-moderators could help structure future discussions around these four threads. The first Thread (modalities for Vilnius) needs to be continued right now and the three other ones could benefit from a short summary of the recent discussion by our co-moderators, in order to allow a broader but more structured discussion. I often noted that the IGC list bursts into a frenzy of contributions whenever some statement has to be prepared, often veering into parallel or divergent threads, and the arguments then peter out, only to be rehashed later in another burst. These topics are important and it is useful, every now and then, to try and summarize the different positions, to help the discussion move forward. I hope this helps. Best Bertrand For -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jan 18 13:16:47 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:46:47 -0430 Subject: [governance] The 4 different discussions regarding the MAG In-Reply-To: <954259bd1001180956l33e1961al27d2844141f30ee9@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd1001180956l33e1961al27d2844141f30ee9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B54A58F.7070104@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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 18 13:47:52 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:17:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] The 4 different discussions regarding the MAG In-Reply-To: <954259bd1001180956l33e1961al27d2844141f30ee9@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd1001180956l33e1961al27d2844141f30ee9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B54ACD8.7070100@itforchange.net> Hi Bertrand, >Are IGC members comfortable with a MAG 2009 reconduction with "natural rotation" for February and two MAG+ >meetings (in the same format as September 2009) for May and June ? I prefer we go with the normal process of real rotation. After all nothing has indicated that we wont have an IGF post 2010. In any case, formally MAG is renewed only for a year at a time. So we wont be doing anything 'formally' wrong by doing the full rotation, but only indicating as almost all participants at the IGF indicated, that they see IGF will go on, and want it to go on. Why should we be lazy on this? But I can live with a decision not to rotate. However, the second part of your question "(in the same format as September 2009) for May and June?", has been the main issue of nthe whole debate. No, I do not want to repeat the format of Sept 2009. You know that Sept 2009 had *no* MAG meeting, and the program doc was completely closed and locked in May and it was declared that since there is no MAG meeting in Sept, the program doc cannot be amended or even fine tuned in any substantive way. To lock the (what only only be a sketchy) program doc in Feb itself this time, which is meant by the proposal on the table, is not at all acceptable. and i also dont see any reason why should it be done. Your emails itself notes that post-Feb MAG meetings in the past years have done major work. Why should it not be done this year? What is the motivation for suggesting that? On the other hand I am certainly for MAG meetings to be open to participation by all interested stakeholders. But as I said these are to be 'MAG meetings' and not *non MAG* planning meetings, which was the format of September 2009. >Some concern have been raised that this could point towards a suppression of the MAG altogether in the coming >years, once the IGF is continued. > I understood nothing of the sort in the discussions. Then you did not note the fact that the proposer of the proposal that we are discussing did clearly call it a possible experiment of do-we-even-need-a-MAG-at-all. You may have access to MAG list - it was clearly proposed that MAG meets a last time in Feb, specifically in response to misgivings on whether simply extending the tenure of the old MAG will go well with everyone. So I am responding to a real situation, where it was proposed that there will be no MAG for the most of the year, and not an imagined 'conspiracy theory'. Parminder Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dar all, > > Following the intense exchanges on the list in the past week regarding > the MAG, it may be useful to clarify the four different (albeit > complementary) issues that are being discussed, in order to avoid > mixing them together. This could hopefully help structure further > discussions and avoid distracting the list from the more pressing task > of finalizing the IGC contribution for February (see comment at the > end). The four issues are : > > *1) Modalities for Vilnius preparation : new MAG or not ?* > > What started the discussion was a proposal for specific modalities for > the preparation of the Vilnius IGF. The tradition was to have the MAG > installed in May and remaining until February to deal with the > stock-taking session on the previous IGF. But the Vilnius IGF will > take place in September, earlier than previous IGFs, and it will be > the last of the first serie of five. > > The question was therefore : is it worth going through the whole > process of MAG renewal (1/3) for such a limited period of time (one > meeting in May), given in addition the decision to be made regarding > the continuation of the IGF itself ? Merely maintaining the 2009 MAG > was one simple option, with maybe the mere replacement of "natural > rotation", ie people leaving their MAG position for one reason or the > other. > > Markus Kummer in addition felt that an additional planning meeting > could be added in June and suggested that the same format as the one > used in September 2009 meeting for finalizing Sharm El Sheikh could be > used. This format, open to willing participants, could be called a MAG > +. Are IGC members comfortable with a MAG 2009 reconduction with > "natural rotation" for February and two MAG+ meetings (in the same > format as September 2009) for May and June ? An alternative could be > > *2) Does this hint at a suppression of the MAG in the furture ?* > > Some concern have been raised that this could point towards a > suppression of the MAG altogether in the coming years, once the IGF is > continued. > > I understood nothing of the sort in the discussions. The creation of > the MAG as a multi-stakeholder structure shaping the Agenda and > working methods of the IGF (on the basis of broader consultations) > should be considered one of the positive "acquis" of the last five > years and most actors want it preserved. In addition, there is a valid > argument regarding the capacity for certain actors to get funding if > they are part of a MAG, that they would not get for more amorphous > open meetings. > > The discussion on the governance list has clearly demonstrated strong > support for the existence of a MAG. It is an innovative structure than > can of course be improved. But nothing indicates that the Secretariat > has any intention to suppress it. No conspiracy theory here. > > *3) What are / should be the "powers" of the MAG ?* > > This is a third issue, and it is worth exploring. The current > functioning can probably be summarized as follows : on the basis of > the lessons from the previous event, the MAG in the February meeting > outlines the main structure of the next IGF and does a preliminary > identification of the general theme, the general structure of the > event (number, length and format of the main sessions) and the labels > of the main sessions. This often raises interesting political > discussions and produces formulations that are acceptable to all, but > give some more detailed focus on one specific angle for each session. > > The preliminary thematic structure is usually circulated for comments > and refined by the MAG after the May consultations. The final > composition of the panels (if any) is determined ideally during the > September meeting, and usually up to the last minute :-) Last > September, the panel composition and the choice of moderators was > prepared in an open format (that is proposed again this year). > > This is how the self-organizing nature of the IGF has produced a > progressive refining of the themes. From the relatively neutral four > themes of Athens (the so-called SODA Agenda : Security, Openness, > Diversity and Access) , we have progressively evolved into the themes > addressed in Sharm, that included : Critical Internet Resources; > Security, Openness and Privacy; IG in the light of WSIS Principles and > an emerging issues session on Social Media. Vilnius can continue this > trend and it is up to the MAG to do it in a balanced way. > > Valid discussions have emerged on the list regarding the real powers > of the MAG (vs the Secretariat or UN DESA) and whether they should be > further increased. This deserves more discussions in the perspective > of the continuation of the IGF. /(It is important to note however that > the organization of the consultations on the continuation of the IGF > in Sharm el Sheikh were out of the responsibility of the 2009 MAG and > entirely under the leadership of DESA, in application of Article 76 of > the Tunis Agenda)/. > > But in this discussion, it could be interesting to distinguish more > clearly between a) the general Agenda-setting function (which is a > major purpose of the MAG closed sessions, and probably one of the main > reasons for keeping a MAG) and b) the choice of panelists that can > benefit from a broader, more open interaction. For Vilinus, in order > to reduce the overall number of workshops, the MAG could also envisage > identifying a few sub-themes of the main sessions, to be discussed in > dedicated workshops that it would initiate and call the relevant > stakeholders to co-organize (see French contribution previously posted). > > *4) The composition and nomination of the MAG* > > This is a fourth thread, certainly important, as questions of improved > balance between stakeholders, modes of designation and role of the UN > Secretary General in the nomination (the black-box mechanism) could > usefully be addressed when looking forward towards the next five years. > > Here again, valid views have been exchanged, with strong political > undertones (in the positive sense) and the potential for innovation > should be fully explored (as mentioned by Wolfgang). > _______________ > > I hope this post helps clarify the range of issues. Maybe our > co-moderators could help structure future discussions around these > four threads. > > The first Thread (modalities for Vilnius) needs to be continued right > now and the three other ones could benefit from *a short summary of > the recent discussion by our co-moderators*, in order to allow a > broader but more structured discussion. I often noted that the IGC > list bursts into a frenzy of contributions whenever some statement has > to be prepared, often veering into parallel or divergent threads, and > the arguments then peter out, only to be rehashed later in another burst. > > These topics are important and it is useful, every now and then, to > try and summarize the different positions, to help the discussion move > forward. I hope this helps. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > > For > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for > the Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Jan 18 17:48:00 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 03:48:00 +0500 Subject: [governance] The 4 different discussions regarding the MAG In-Reply-To: <954259bd1001180956l33e1961al27d2844141f30ee9@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd1001180956l33e1961al27d2844141f30ee9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f71001181448r63a2fa03ga7a8097987d9873b@mail.gmail.com> Dear Bertrand, My confusion arises from two things. When I was selected to into the MAG, I was notified that there would be two MAG meetings for the task that MAG carries out but the program for the IGF2009 Sharam was locked down in the very first meeting allowing no modification to the program and none of the following meetings in the form of Open Consultation/Public Meeting helped the locked down program. Stakeholders moved forward with grievances and 'just' went through the IGF because there was 'no other way'. We new MAG members, representing IGC also moved forward in a lot of confusion so both the stakeholders and their MAG members were taken forward confused. This was in fact a weakness on part of the MAG and a wrong justification that we set the program but no Open Consultation followed on that program followed by another MAG meeting to fix, modify, innovate any issues rising from such an Open Consultation. The program wasn't improved. Despite the strong interventions on changing main session themes to Human Rights and Internet as well as the Development Agenda never happened and we ended up with ICANN and other companies delivering stories about how good they are or were. Its not that they shouldn't be given the space, its indeed an open space but only two stakeholders on the multistakeholderism isn't the IGF in its totality is it? Second concern, why experiment when the IGF2009 did not prove to be stakeholder consensus led? It was fine because it was felt to be fine. No, definitely not possible. We have to realise that we cannot defer from the mandate and nor the process that we together set forth and well implemented if we say we are to move forward together in the era of renewal. I do not want to repeat September 2009 meeting formats at all as I shared in the MAG list. This meeting should be declared a MAG Meeting with Public Participation so that stakeholders can propose changes or modifications or improvements or innovations and we the members of the MAG designated by our respective stakeholder groups of the multistakeholderism to help intervene, deliberate and take those suggestions forward and structure a program conducive to our stakeholder needs! The upcoming meeting in February 2010 has to have its open consultation plus a full MAG meeting with all stakeholders invited and run in an open and public manner so that our stakeholders that have selected us and sent us into the MAG can witness and see that we take their issues to the floor and that we try our level best to deliver a program according to their needs. Balancing and countering over-sized interest groups trying to take control should be countered by the MAG because we are well aware of the situation. Future experiments and tests can be done when we have the new IGF mandate in our hands and the next 5 years announced after the Vilnius meeting. IT is necessary for the satisfaction of our stakeholders that we go with the normal process of real rotation as was happening before and we have a designated MAG meeting open to our stakeholders/the public so transparency plays its part and innovation in main session themes and program organization improves the IGF as an open space for dialogue evolving in accordance to the ever-changing/ever-evolving Internet! As a MAG member, my priority is my stakeholder group, the IGC, its voice, needs, concerns, interventions and deliberations and from last year IGF2009, I am sorry to say that it wasn't an achievement. Let's fix things and stop from trying to hop over IGF2010 again. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dar all, > > Following the intense exchanges on the list in the past week regarding the > MAG, it may be useful to clarify the four different (albeit complementary) > issues that are being discussed, in order to avoid mixing them together. > This could hopefully help structure further discussions and avoid > distracting the list from the more pressing task of finalizing the IGC > contribution for February (see comment at the end). The four issues are : > > 1) Modalities for Vilnius preparation : new MAG  or not ? > > What started the discussion was a proposal for specific modalities for the > preparation of the Vilnius IGF. The tradition was to have the MAG installed > in May and remaining until February to deal with the stock-taking session on > the previous IGF. But the Vilnius IGF will take place in September, earlier > than previous IGFs, and it will be the last of the first serie of five. > > The question was therefore : is it worth going through the whole process of > MAG renewal (1/3) for such a limited period of time (one meeting in May), > given in addition the decision to be made regarding the continuation of the > IGF itself ? Merely maintaining the 2009 MAG was one simple option, with > maybe the mere replacement of "natural rotation", ie people leaving their > MAG position for one reason or the other. > > Markus Kummer in addition felt that an additional planning meeting could be > added in June and suggested that the same format as the one used in > September 2009 meeting for finalizing Sharm El Sheikh could be used. This > format, open to willing participants, could be called a MAG +. Are IGC > members comfortable with a MAG 2009 reconduction with "natural rotation" for > February and two MAG+ meetings (in the same format as September 2009) for > May and June ? An alternative could be > > 2)  Does this hint at a suppression of the MAG in the furture ? > > Some concern have been raised that this could point towards a suppression of > the MAG altogether in the coming years, once the IGF is continued. > > I understood nothing of the sort in the discussions. The creation of the MAG > as a multi-stakeholder structure shaping the Agenda and working methods of > the IGF (on the basis of broader consultations) should be considered one of > the positive "acquis" of the last five years and most actors want it > preserved. In addition, there is a valid argument regarding the capacity for > certain actors to get funding if they are part of a MAG, that they would not > get for more amorphous open meetings. > > The discussion on the governance list has clearly demonstrated strong > support for the existence of a MAG. It is an innovative structure than can > of course be improved. But nothing indicates that the Secretariat has any > intention to suppress it. No conspiracy theory here. > > 3) What are / should be the "powers" of the MAG ? > > This is a third issue, and it is worth exploring. The current functioning > can probably be summarized as follows : on the basis of the lessons from the > previous event, the MAG in the February meeting outlines the main structure > of the next IGF and does a preliminary identification of the general theme, > the general structure of the event (number, length and format of the main > sessions) and the labels of the main sessions. This often raises interesting > political discussions and produces formulations that are acceptable to all, > but give some more detailed focus on one specific angle for each session. > > The preliminary thematic structure is usually circulated for comments and > refined by the MAG after the May consultations. The final composition of the > panels (if any) is determined ideally during the September meeting, and > usually up to the last minute :-) Last September, the panel composition and > the choice of moderators was prepared in an open format (that is proposed > again this year). > > This is how the self-organizing nature of the IGF has produced a progressive > refining of the themes. From the relatively neutral four themes of Athens > (the so-called SODA Agenda : Security, Openness, Diversity and Access) , we > have progressively evolved into the themes addressed in Sharm, that included > : Critical Internet Resources; Security, Openness and Privacy; IG in the > light of WSIS Principles and an emerging issues session on Social Media. > Vilnius can continue this trend and it is up to the MAG to do it in a > balanced way. > > Valid discussions have emerged on the list regarding the real powers of the > MAG (vs the Secretariat or UN DESA) and whether they should be further > increased. This deserves more discussions in the perspective of the > continuation of the IGF. (It is important to note however that the > organization of the consultations on the continuation of the IGF in Sharm el > Sheikh were  out of the responsibility of the 2009 MAG and entirely under > the leadership of DESA, in application of Article 76 of the Tunis Agenda). > > But in this discussion, it could be interesting to distinguish more clearly > between a) the general Agenda-setting function (which is a major purpose of > the MAG closed sessions, and probably one of the main reasons for keeping a > MAG) and b) the choice of panelists that can benefit from a broader, more > open interaction. For Vilinus, in order to reduce the overall number of > workshops, the MAG could also envisage identifying a few sub-themes of the > main sessions, to be discussed in dedicated workshops that it would initiate > and call the relevant stakeholders to co-organize (see French contribution > previously posted). > > 4) The composition and nomination of the MAG > > This is a fourth thread, certainly important, as questions of improved > balance between stakeholders, modes of designation and role of the UN > Secretary General in the nomination (the black-box mechanism) could usefully > be addressed when looking forward towards the next five years. > > Here again, valid views have been exchanged, with strong political > undertones (in the positive sense) and the potential for innovation should > be fully explored (as mentioned by Wolfgang). > _______________ > > I hope this post helps clarify the range of issues. Maybe our co-moderators > could help structure future discussions around these four threads. > > The first Thread (modalities for Vilnius) needs to be continued right now > and the three other ones could benefit from a short summary of the recent > discussion by our co-moderators, in order to allow a broader but more > structured discussion. I often noted that the IGC list bursts into a frenzy > of contributions whenever some statement has to be prepared, often veering > into parallel or divergent threads, and the arguments then peter out, only > to be rehashed later in another burst. > > These topics are important and it is useful, every now and then, to try and > summarize the different positions, to help the discussion move forward. I > hope this helps. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > > For > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign > and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 18 17:55:14 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:55:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] The 4 different discussions regarding the MAG In-Reply-To: <701af9f71001181448r63a2fa03ga7a8097987d9873b@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd1001180956l33e1961al27d2844141f30ee9@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71001181448r63a2fa03ga7a8097987d9873b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <701af9f71001181448r63a2fa03ga7a8097987d9873b at mail.gmail.com>, at 03:48:00 on Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Fouad Bajwa writes >When I was selected to into the MAG, I was notified that there would >be two MAG meetings for the task that MAG carries out but the program >for the IGF2009 Sharam was locked down in the very first meeting >allowing no modification to the program and none of the following >meetings in the form of Open Consultation/Public Meeting helped the >locked down program. So there's no opportunity for further confusion, what was the date (month is sufficient) of that "very first meeting" you mention? And was that your very first MAG meeting, or the first in 2009? -- 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 Mon Jan 18 20:48:04 2010 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:48:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society In-Reply-To: <768743.63041.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <768743.63041.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: All, There are some important issues in this intechange. First, I speak only for myself in this forum, not at all for ICANN. What I say here has noting to do with my connection with ICANN. Perhaps I should have made that explicit, but I thought it would be obvious. In addition, ICANN's mandate is to ensure the safety and security of the Internet with regard to assigned names and numbers, and to work for the public interest in doing so. Its mandate is purposely bounded, and I suspect that almost all of the people who subscribe to this list would like to keep it this way. Second, thinking about a longer term strategy for civil society does not preclude acting in the short term, whether it's preparing a position paper or actually engaging in work the field to support valued principles. Furthermore, a longer term vision/strategy that has achieved consensus is likely to be helpful in informing short term activities. My post concerned itself with Wolfgang's suggestion,not with the draft that is currently being scrutinized by the group. Third, I like practical solutions. I don't like establishing goals that cannot possibly be achieved and for which no action can be specified and is taken. In particular, I don't like goals that provide self-satisfaction to the person who sets them but does nothing to work toward that goal in an effective manner. Let's look at the United Nations MDGs just as an example. Consider goal 4: reducing infant mortality: Reduce by two thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rate Now I believe that no one on this list, and certainly no one at the United Nations, is in favor of any residual infant mortality. However, note that the goal is not to eliminate infant mortality completely, but to reduce it very significantly. This is possibly a realistic goal. If it can be met (and Iam not an expert on whether it is feasible or not), then a next reasonable goal would be to reduce it further. There are some things that you can do with a realistic goal such as this. for example, you can analyze where and why the rate of infant mortality is high, and consider what measures, if taken, would reduce it and by how much. You can prioritize efforts toward achieving this goal and get the biggest return for the money spent. It's interesting to speculate what kinds of goals might be appropriate for civil society actors -- presumably including subscribers to this list -- if such an approach were taken. Here are some examples that have some appeal for me; if you don't like them, choose some that you like better: 1. Work toward achieving formal acceptance of confidentiality of information on the Internet in 80% of the countries in the world. Develop or use an existing measure of open governance hostility to identify governments where action at the local level is needed and should be supported. Transparency International and others are engaged in this type of activity. 2. Work toward establishing and propagating a collection of techniques, tools and training that will allow civil society investigators in countries with less-than-open governments to be effective in their collection of information while protecting themselves, their data,and their sources. Citizen Lab in Toronto is an excellent example of this approach. 3. Develop policy statements that are helpful in understanding situations and that prescribe realistic actions to improve the situation. The access paper of APC is a good example of such an effort. 4. Develop educational programs that educate people internationally regarding technology, governance, economics -- whatever is necessary to seed governments and other organizations with people who understand an are or will be in positions to affect the policies of their governments. The ICANN Studentkreis and Diplo Foundation's instructional program in Internet governance are good examples of this. 5. Work in the field, assisting groups and countries with spreading technology and working to provide affordable and available access to it with commitments of confidentiality of information. McTim has spent a lot of time doing exactly this. This world isn't perfect. Bad things happen, very often not to the right people. In the very short run, we are often powerless to do anything about it. However, in the longer run, we can work towards an environment, country by country, ultimately at a global level, in which far fewer bad things happen, and the set of ideals to which most of us subscribe will be more broadly respected and practiced. This takes work. Discussion is useful, but is likely to be sterile unless followed by or accompanied by significant action. I argue that the action should be directed toward achievable goals, achievable relative to the mandate and the resources of the organization, both in the short and long run. I trust that I've spelled out my opinions and feelings sufficiently so that there will be no further misinterpretation. Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 2:41 PM -0800 1/18/10, Eric Dierker wrote: >Please pull your head out of the clouds and look >at what this paper is designed for. >All these concepts are beautiful and wonderful. >Perhaps this is why we say: Those who can do,,, >those who cannot teach. (not specific here but >the concept applies) > >Would it make more sense for an ICANN bod member >to want to guide us from practical into >ethereal?? I am just saying.... > >I especially like the tenor that we should >lesson goals away from what is right and more >into what is achievable. Yes we should set our >ideals low, like "at least some folks should >have access to knowledge". Like telling a >rookie, "just be glad we let you play" leave the >scoring to us old veterans. > >Today is a reality: Iranian authorities have >warned opposition supporters against using text >and e-mail messages to organise protest >rallies. Note that opposing this notion would >be a "Utopia". And ICANN would never have a >stance against it, lest they offend. > >--- On Sat, 1/16/10, George Sadowsky wrote: > > >From: George Sadowsky >Subject: Re: [governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society re >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, ""Kleinwächter, >Wolfgang"" > >Date: Saturday, January 16, 2010, 3:55 PM > >All, > >I thank Wolfgang for contributing the wisdom in his message below to the list. > >In particular, the notion of a long run >strategy, with long run defined goals and >objectives for civil society, is very appealing. >It would provide a compact and clearly >articulated vision of what the desired goals are >as well as a guide for short run activities that >would encourage the attainment of those goals. > >I like Wolfgang's emphasis on viewing civil >society activities in a broader scope, including >not only IGF but also ITU, GAID and the United >Nations. There are a number of players in this >space; some will continue play in it >indefinitely, some will fade out of existence, >and others are likely to be born. Having a >vision that concentrates upon principles is >likely to me more useful in a shifting landscape >of different organizations with changing and >different objectives. > >Having long run articulated goals that are not >so utopian as to be unachievable appeals very >much to me. As Wolfgang notes, there will be a >post-MAG/IGF period, we are already entering a >post-JPA/ICANN period, and it's likely that >there will be a post-GAID period also. What in >the long run are the characteristics of the >Internet governance regime -- as well as the >state of ICT4D delivery (which may be as or more >important) -- that civil society could >practically achieve in those future periods? > >Regards, > >George > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >At 1:13 PM +0100 1/16/10, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >> >> Hi all >> >> McTim is right, there is no "rough consensus". > > >> I did not jump into the discussion because I >>am very busy these days with some other >>activities, however I follow the debate and >>would warn to move forward too fast. >> >> There is a need for a more fundamental >>clarification of the whole issue and a more >>strategic re-orientation of the IGC and the >>role of civil society in Internet Governance >>policy development in the coming years. This is >>part of a broader package of post MAG/IGF, post >>JPA/ICANN and post GAID/UN. What is the role of >>the IGC in all these processes (including the >>forthcoming ITU pushed WSIS Forum in May 2010 >>and the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in >>October 2010). And what the IGC is doing in >>other process where Internet Governance becomes >>an issue (ACTA is just one example)? And how >>the IGC positioned itself to new processes in >>the UN General Assembly (with regard to >>Internet security and governance, pushed by the >>government of Russia in the 2nd committee)? And >>what we are doing in cases like Google vs. >>China? >> >> Before we make hasty statements on the future >>of the IGF, probably we should start to discuss >>a more strategic vision paper on "Civil Society >>and Internet Governance 2015". If we have >>something like this until the IGF in Vilnjus >>this would be great. We could have an extra one >>day pre-conference of the IGC to invite also >>other stakeholders and we could organize one or >>two workshops around this strategic >>re-orientation within the IGF 2010 programme. >> >> Jeremy, I understand that as a new co-chair >>you want to "deliver" something, but sometimes >>it is better for a chair just to enable the >>members of the group to exchange their views, >>to stimulare their thinking and to moderate a >>bottom up opinion building process. Strong >>leadership includes also the capacity to >>listen, to ask questions (not to give quick >>answers) and to steer the process from behind, >>where needed. >> >> Best regards >> >> 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 Mon Jan 18 22:04:02 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:34:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] The 4 different discussions regarding the MAG In-Reply-To: References: <954259bd1001180956l33e1961al27d2844141f30ee9@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71001181448r63a2fa03ga7a8097987d9873b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B552122.1040102@itforchange.net> Roland Perry wrote: > In message > <701af9f71001181448r63a2fa03ga7a8097987d9873b at mail.gmail.com>, at > 03:48:00 on Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Fouad Bajwa writes >> When I was selected to into the MAG, I was notified that there would >> be two MAG meetings for the task that MAG carries out but the program >> for the IGF2009 Sharam was locked down in the very first meeting >> allowing no modification to the program and none of the following >> meetings in the form of Open Consultation/Public Meeting helped the >> locked down program. > > So there's no opportunity for further confusion, With due respect I may suggest that IGF itslef is a lot of confusion, and if avoiding confusion is our main objective we could, well, even do without the whole thing. IGF is a political process, because governance of Internet matters, and often interests of different groups are different and a larger composite public interest needs to evolved through political processes, part of which happen inside the IGF, and rest should , consequently, happen outside. In fact as part of the present proposal to do away with MAG meetings, it did get stated that Feb meeting has a more political task of framing an agenda, and the other two meetings are more programmatic. While it can only be a continuum, difficult to delimit, between the political and programmatic/ technical, my objection is precisely to do with efforts towards reducing the political nature of the IGF processes, in curtailing MAG meetings. This corresponds of difference in views on what is the primary character and objective of the IGF. What is political process to some is confusion to others. Respective views are however not difficult to understand and place in a political economy context. (To repeat, this is not personal but a larger political discussion.) Parminder > what was the date (month is sufficient) of that "very first meeting" > you mention? And was that your very first MAG meeting, or the first in > 2009? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 18 22:45:39 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 11:45:39 +0800 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B549146.6090909@itforchange.net> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> <4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu> <4B516ABC.1080708@itforchange.net> <4B51FBC2.7020407@wzb.eu> <4B529F4E.1090200@itforchange.net> <8C6EFDC4-E1BF-4692-98C1-B037809E33E3@ciroap.org> <79DEA182-710D-4058-A394-D6E500627E5B@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B54445E.4050408@itforchange.net> <4B545CC3.1060004@itforchange.net> <4B549146.6090909@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 19/01/2010, at 12:50 AM, Parminder wrote: > My comments are strictly within the above context. And i do think that if this group primarily engages with the IGF, such an important move vis a vis the only structured element of the IGF, i.e. MAG, should evoke much greater engagement, than, in my humble opinion, has been seen on this list. > > It has been decided that this issue will also be put for the consideration of the open consultation in Feb. Is IGC going to make a statement on this issue? I do think that this should be part of the statement that we are now settling. How about we add in this paragraph: "As to the rotation of the current MAG, the fact that a formal decision is yet to be taken on whether the IGF is to be renewed and in what form is not seen by the IGC as a decisive factor against the rotation. However if a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. This is felt to have been a negative outcome of the cancellation of the September MAG meeting, in favour of an open planning session, ahead of the IGF meeting in Sharm el Sheikh." -- 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 Jan 18 22:45:58 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 11:45:58 +0800 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010, In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1CA5A9E4-9F13-403E-AE7A-DF482D150C2B@ciroap.org> On 19/01/2010, at 1:28 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > I beg this years MAG, not to make mistakes like last-years (The China/Rights > thing). Those kind of issues-becoming-incidents will push the IGF/IGC into the > hands of the ITU. Actually that was 100% the Secretariat, but your point is understood. -- 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 19 01:08:47 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:08:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <286695.23570.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Mr. Sadowsky, Thank you for your attention. It is good of you to spend the time laying out a broad and encompassing vision.  You remarks make clear very pertinent and important facts.  I concur that we must have at least a two prong approach. One of immediate concerns and practical solutions and positions and one of "keeping our eye on the ball" and maintaining a long term perspective that can help guide us and inspire us in long hours of hard work and debate. We must not let short term tasks divert us from a larger purpose and a greater benefit for all.   I would add another need, a daily monitoring and check on purpose and a watchful eye toward actions or innactions that benefit agendas and not purpose. That often in this very diverse group of good people short term private and personal plans sometimes derail good works. Minute negative distractions often derail good projects. I apologize but sometimes a short remark without explanation does not do justice to good points such as the ones you lay out here. I appreciate your setting me straight, and hopefully others have benefited from your correction to my assumptions.   As we write the 4 areas are being redefined and adjusted and rightly so.   Today in the US we celebrated a fine man who held "extraordinary things happen when ordinary people care". Your work reveals your caring. --- On Tue, 1/19/10, George Sadowsky wrote: From: George Sadowsky Subject: Re: [governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: "Eric Dierker" Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 1:48 AM All, There are some important issues in this intechange. First, I speak only for myself in this forum, not at all for ICANN.  What I say here has noting to do with my connection with ICANN.  Perhaps I should have made that explicit, but I thought it would be obvious. In addition, ICANN's mandate is to ensure the safety and security of the Internet with regard to assigned names and numbers, and to work for the public interest in doing so.  Its mandate is purposely bounded, and I suspect that almost all of the people who subscribe to this list would like to keep it this way. Second, thinking about a longer term strategy for civil society does not preclude acting in the short term, whether it's preparing a position paper or actually engaging in work the field to support valued principles.  Furthermore, a longer term vision/strategy that has achieved consensus is likely to be helpful in informing short term activities.  My post concerned itself with Wolfgang's suggestion,not with the draft that is currently being scrutinized by the group. Third, I like practical solutions.  I don't like establishing goals that cannot possibly be achieved and for which no action can be specified and is taken.  In particular, I don't like goals that provide self-satisfaction to the person who sets them but does nothing to work toward that goal in an effective manner. Let's look at the United Nations MDGs just as an example.  Consider goal 4: reducing infant mortality:         Reduce by two thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rate Now I believe that no one on this list, and certainly no one at the United Nations, is in favor of any residual infant mortality.  However, note that the goal is not to eliminate infant mortality completely,  but to reduce it very significantly.  This is possibly a realistic goal.  If it can be met (and Iam not an expert on whether it is feasible or not), then a next reasonable goal would be to reduce it further. There are some things that you can do with a realistic goal such as this.  for example, you can analyze where and why the rate of infant mortality is high, and consider what measures, if taken, would reduce it and by how much.  You can prioritize efforts toward achieving this goal and get the biggest return for the money spent. It's interesting to speculate what kinds of goals might be appropriate for civil society actors  --  presumably including subscribers to this list  --   if such an approach were taken.  Here are some examples that have some appeal for me; if you don't like them, choose some that you like better: 1. Work toward achieving formal acceptance of confidentiality of information on the Internet in 80% of the countries in the world.  Develop or use an existing measure of open governance hostility to identify governments where action at the local level is needed and should be supported.  Transparency International and others are engaged in this type of activity. 2. Work toward establishing and propagating a collection of techniques, tools and training that will allow civil society investigators in countries with less-than-open governments to be effective in their collection of information while protecting themselves, their data,and their sources.  Citizen Lab in Toronto is an excellent example of this approach. 3. Develop policy statements that are helpful in understanding situations and that prescribe realistic actions to improve the situation.  The access paper of APC is a good example of such an effort. 4. Develop educational programs that educate people internationally regarding technology, governance, economics -- whatever is necessary to seed governments and other organizations with people who understand an are or will be in positions to affect the policies of their governments.  The ICANN Studentkreis and Diplo Foundation's instructional program in Internet governance are good examples of this. 5. Work in the field, assisting groups and countries with spreading technology and working to provide affordable and available access to it with commitments of confidentiality of information.  McTim has spent a lot of time doing exactly this.   This world isn't perfect.  Bad things happen, very often not to the right people.   In the very short run, we are often powerless to do anything about it.  However, in the longer run, we can work towards an environment, country by country, ultimately at a global level, in which far fewer bad things happen, and the set of ideals to which most of us subscribe will be more broadly respected and practiced. This takes work.  Discussion is useful, but is likely to be sterile unless followed by or accompanied by significant action.  I argue that the action should be directed toward achievable goals, achievable relative to the mandate and the resources of the organization, both in the short and long run. I trust that I've spelled out my opinions and feelings sufficiently so that there will be no further misinterpretation. Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 2:41 PM -0800 1/18/10, Eric Dierker wrote: Please pull your head out of the clouds and look at what this paper is designed for. All these concepts are beautiful and wonderful. Perhaps this is why we say: Those who can do,,, those who cannot teach. (not specific here but the concept applies)   Would it make more sense for an ICANN bod member to want to guide us from practical into ethereal??  I am just saying....   I especially like the tenor that we should lesson goals away from what is right and more into what is achievable. Yes we should set our ideals low, like "at least some folks should have access to knowledge". Like telling a rookie, "just be glad we let you play" leave the scoring to us old veterans.   Today is a reality: Iranian authorities have warned opposition supporters against using text and e-mail messages to organise protest rallies.  Note that opposing this notion would be a "Utopia". And ICANN would never have a stance against it, lest they offend. --- On Sat, 1/16/10, George Sadowsky wrote: From: George Sadowsky Subject: Re: [governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society re To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" Date: Saturday, January 16, 2010, 3:55 PM All, I thank Wolfgang for contributing the wisdom in his message below to the list. In particular, the notion of a long run strategy, with long run defined goals and objectives for civil society, is very appealing.  It would provide a compact and  clearly articulated vision of what the desired goals are as well as a guide for short run activities that would encourage the attainment of those goals. I like Wolfgang's emphasis on viewing civil society activities in a broader scope, including not only IGF but also ITU, GAID and the United Nations.  There are a number of players in this space; some will continue play in it indefinitely, some will fade out of existence, and others are likely to be born.  Having a vision that concentrates upon principles is likely to me more useful in a shifting landscape of different organizations with changing and different objectives. Having long run articulated goals that are not so utopian as to be unachievable appeals very much to me.  As Wolfgang notes, there will be a post-MAG/IGF period, we are already entering a post-JPA/ICANN period, and it's likely that there will be a post-GAID period also.  What in the long run are the characteristics of the Internet governance regime  --  as well as the state of ICT4D delivery (which may be as or more important)  --  that civil society could practically achieve in those future periods? Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 1:13 PM +0100 1/16/10, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > > Hi all > > McTim is right, there is no "rough consensus". > > I did not jump into the discussion because I am very busy these days with some other activities, however I follow the debate and would warn to move forward too fast. > > There is a need for a more fundamental clarification of the whole issue and a more strategic re-orientation of the IGC and the role of civil society in Internet Governance policy development in the coming years. This is part of a broader package of post MAG/IGF, post JPA/ICANN and post GAID/UN. What is the role of the IGC in all these processes (including the forthcoming ITU pushed WSIS Forum in May 2010 and the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in October 2010). And what the IGC is doing in other process where Internet Governance becomes an issue (ACTA is just one example)? And how the IGC positioned itself to new processes in the UN General Assembly (with regard to Internet security and governance, pushed by the government of Russia in the 2nd committee)? And what we are doing in cases like Google vs. China? > > Before we make hasty statements on the future of the IGF, probably we should start to discuss a more strategic vision paper on "Civil Society and Internet Governance 2015". If we have something like this until the IGF in Vilnjus this would be great. We could have an extra one day pre-conference of the IGC to invite also other stakeholders and we could organize one or two workshops around this strategic re-orientation within the IGF 2010 programme. > > Jeremy, I understand that as a new co-chair you want to "deliver" something, but sometimes it is better for a chair just to enable the members of the group to exchange their views, to stimulare their thinking and to moderate a bottom up opinion building process. Strong leadership includes also the capacity to listen, to ask questions (not to give quick answers) and to steer the process from behind, where needed. > > Best regards > > Wolfgang > ____________________________________________________________ -----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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Jan 19 03:19:54 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:19:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] The 4 different discussions regarding the MAG In-Reply-To: <4B552122.1040102@itforchange.net> References: <954259bd1001180956l33e1961al27d2844141f30ee9@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71001181448r63a2fa03ga7a8097987d9873b@mail.gmail.com> <4B552122.1040102@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4B552122.1040102 at itforchange.net>, at 08:34:02 on Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Parminder writes >>> When I was selected to into the MAG, I was notified that there would >>> be two MAG meetings for the task that MAG carries out but the program >>> for the IGF2009 Sharam was locked down in the very first meeting >>> allowing no modification to the program and none of the following >>> meetings in the form of Open Consultation/Public Meeting helped the >>> locked down program. >> >> So there's no opportunity for further confusion, >With due respect I may suggest that IGF itslef is a lot of confusion, >and if avoiding confusion is our main objective we could, well, even do >without the whole thing. What would help reduce the inevitable confusion surrounding any large process, is clarity regarding the facts. I make no apology for wanting to know the simplest of facts! There is a big difference between an assertion that the 2009 IGF meeting's agenda was "locked down" in February (the first meeting of the MAG that year) or in May (the first meeting with a rotated MAG). >In fact as part of the present proposal to do away with MAG meetings, >it did get stated that Feb meeting has a more political task of framing >an agenda, and the other two meetings are more programmatic. This year is also different because the Vilnius meeting is in September, two months earlier than the Sharm meeting. Or to put it more bluntly, with the traditional gap in (all kinds of) activity during July and August, if the May MAG meeting doesn't decide "everything", then the June meeting (whatever form it takes) will not be able to finalise the workshop timetable or the speaker list. If we have to wait until after a MAG meeting on June 30th to fully understand what it is we (in the outside world) are preparing for, it's too late. Even waiting until 12th May is bad enough, as diaries are already full of big meetings between then and the end of June. -- 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Jan 19 09:24:19 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 06:24:19 -0800 Subject: [governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society In-Reply-To: References: <768743.63041.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <76f819dd1001190624q7606e9f3i8b8029b6b8d100f@mail.gmail.com> On 1/18/10, George Sadowsky wrote: [snip] > Reduce by two thirds, between 1990 and > 2015, the under-five mortality rate > > Now I believe that no one on this list, and > certainly no one at the United Nations, is in > favor of any residual infant mortality. However, > note that the goal is not to eliminate infant > mortality completely, but to reduce it very > significantly. This is possibly a realistic > goal. If it can be met (and Iam not an expert on > whether it is feasible or not), then a next > reasonable goal would be to reduce it further. > > There are some things that you can do with a > realistic goal such as this. [snip] > > This takes work. Discussion is useful, but is > likely to be sterile unless followed by or > accompanied by significant action. I argue that > the action should be directed toward achievable > goals, achievable relative to the mandate and the > resources of the organization, both in the short > and long run. This may perhaps just be a difference in terminology, or it may not. But a "goal", without any modifying adjective, is a final destination or completion. If it's an interim goal, a steppingstone, a benchmark of progress then the "goal" should be described as such. "Achievable goals" within resource limits of a finite organization are only limited, interim goals. Using the example of child mortality, the ONLY "goal" without any modifier as a final destination would be its elimination. The only "goal" as a final destination for equality is perfect equality. Now, this causes the objection, heard above, that "achievable" goals are desired, because the world is 'imperfect." This is fine if what you mean is interim goals, but if the TARGET in terms of a final destination is only to cut the rate of unavoidable mortality by half, one has left the other half, perhaps consisting of millions of children over time, to die. Worst of all, the deaths of millions of children in this as yet unserved half of the child population is defined as a "goal" -- is that really desirable? Let's take Honesty as an example. We all know the world's imperfect with honesty and probably can never achieve 100% honesty and perhaps some would argue in unusual situations honesty isn't desirable, but let's take the usual situations as our example. Should we have a "realistic" achievable goal of lying only 50% as much as previously? This would be appropriate only as an interim goal, a benchmark of progress but not as a final destination. Though we may admit we will never reach a final destination type of goal, it is a mistake not to keep that goal in view and to SHOOT FOR IT, even as we know we're assured practically of failure, or at least we fear so. If we shoot for the stars, as they say, we may fall short but still end up on the moon. On the other hand, if we give up our principles or ideals as goals, such as if we give up the ideal of Honesty, what happens in fact is that we become PATHOLOGICAL liars. We don't even care about the truth, or know what it is, or feel any compunctions about straying from the truth because we've lost sight of the guidestar of Honesty - the ideal of Honesty is no longer our goal. I've no objection to achievable INTERIM goals. I would object to dropping ideals or principles as ultimate goals. As ultimate goals, even if we are guaranteed never to achieve the full goal, it still provides a critical function in guiding our actions, like the ideal of Honesty does. Even as we breach or violate the ideal of honesty, we know deep down we lied, and that is very important - it avoids being a pathological liar. What's objectionable to me, because it creates the danger of pathology, is the risk of intentionally or unintentionally abandoning important ideals as ultimate goals on the grounds that they are utopian and not practical, pie in the sky and not achievable, etc. That can all be considered to be true, and yet it is still dangerous pathology to abandon the ideal, and it is ill advised to discredit the ideal such as Honesty with arguments that it is utopian, naive, unachievable in fact, and not workable or very facilitative of tangible measurable goals. A principle or ideal, such as Honesty or Net Neutrality (however we define those things) is like a North Star or a guidestar: We may never actually reach it, but if we don't keep it at hand and preferably in sight at all possible times, we will surely get lost - just as the pathological liar is truly lost. Understanding ideals as guidestars and preferably not casting aspersions on guidestars, we will maximize our chances of reaching every achievable goal, because it is ideals and the inspirations they provide that provide the fuel for our journey, in addition to the direction of our journey. All the talk about achievability or pragmatism can all be deemed to be totally true, and yet that is still not grounds for discounting the importance of the ultimate ideal(s) in question. As they say, "keep your eyes on the prize." Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 19 13:05:12 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:05:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Concern for future Message-ID: <424638.6888.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Paul Lehto wrote:   """What's objectionable to me, because it creates the danger of pathology, is the risk of intentionally or unintentionally abandoning important ideals as ultimate goals on the grounds that they are utopian and not practical, pie in the sky and not achievable, etc. That can all be considered to be true, and yet it is still dangerous pathology to abandon the ideal, and it is ill advised to discredit the ideal such as Honesty with arguments that it is utopian, naive, unachievable in fact, and not workable or very facilitative of tangible measurable goals."""   Does this include voting - shouldn't we try even though it may be imperfect?     -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Tue Jan 19 16:08:16 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:08:16 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Concern for future In-Reply-To: <424638.6888.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <424638.6888.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <76f819dd1001191308n88aadabl43eaab4d3e81191@mail.gmail.com> With voting, it's been done perfectly off and on for centuries, so there's no real good excuse for falling short. It's a fairly simple process when done right. That being said, if one aims at the correct target, and gives it what is truly their best shot, then what comes out is no condemnation of those who tried their best. One shouldn't leave their best game in the locker-room, and some intermediate step should not be the "goal" unless it is expressly identified as just a step or an interim goal. If your question is should one vote in a presently existing defective system, it depends on the particulars and the extent of the defects. Elections are pure procedure, so if the procedure is materially messed up, the procedure is worthless as a measure of the true voice and will of the voters. All would depend upon the nature and severity of specifics in the given election, to determine if one should participate in an election, risk participating in a charade or fraud, or boycott a charade or fraud of an election. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 1/19/10, Eric Dierker wrote: > Paul Lehto wrote: > > """What's objectionable to me, because it creates the danger of > pathology, is the risk of intentionally or unintentionally abandoning > important ideals as ultimate goals on the grounds that they are > utopian and not practical, pie in the sky and not achievable, etc. > That can all be considered to be true, and yet it is still dangerous > pathology to abandon the ideal, and it is ill advised to discredit the > ideal such as Honesty with arguments that it is utopian, naive, > unachievable in fact, and not workable or very facilitative of > tangible measurable goals.""" > > Does this include voting - shouldn't we try even though it may be imperfect? > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Jan 21 02:55:11 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:55:11 +0500 Subject: [governance] Less than 10% of IPv4 Addresses Remain Unallocated, says Number Resource Organization Message-ID: <701af9f71001202355g28d08e11o97a2379dfc58be6@mail.gmail.com> Hi Everyone, I have received the following message from the regional Asian Number Resource Organization that currently less than 10% of IPv4 addresses are remaining unallocated. Kindly share your thoughts on this. The state of IPv6 adoption within developing world countries posed a great concern during the IGF2009. ______________________________________________________________________ Less than 10% of IPv4 Addresses Remain Unallocated, says Number Resource Organization _______________________________________________________________________ Dear Colleagues, Deploying IPv6 - the next generation of the Internet Protocol - is vital to the continued development of the Internet AMSTERDAM - The Number Resource Organization (NRO), the official representative of the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) that oversee the allocation of all Internet number resources, announced today that less than 10 percent of available IPv4 addresses remain unallocated. This small pool of existing IP addresses marks a critical moment in IPv4 address exhaustion, ultimately impacting the future network operations of all businesses and organizations around the globe. "This is a key milestone in the growth and development of the global Internet," noted Axel Pawlik, Chairman of the NRO. "With less than 10 percent of the entire IPv4 address range still available for allocation to RIRs, it is vital that the Internet community take considered and determined action to ensure the global adoption of IPv6. The limited IPv4 addresses will not allow us enough resources to achieve the ambitions we all hold for global Internet access. The deployment of IPv6 is a key infrastructure development that will enable the network to support the billions of people and devices that will connect in the coming years," added Pawlik. Internet Protocol is a set of technical rules that defines how devices communicate over a network. There are currently two versions of IP, IPv4 and IPv6. IPv6 includes a modern numbering system that provides a much larger address pool than IPv4. With so few IPv4 addresses remaining, the NRO is urging all Internet stakeholders to take immediate action by planning for the necessary investments required to deploy IPv6. The NRO, alongside each individual RIR, has actively promoted IPv6 deployment for several years through grassroots outreach, speaking engagements, conferences and media outreach. To date, their combined efforts have yielded positive results in the call to action for the adoption of IPv6. Given the less than 10 percent milestone, the NRO is continuing its call for Internet stakeholders, including governments, vendors, enterprises, telecoms operators, and end users, to fulfill their roles in IPv6 adoption, specifically encouraging the following actions: The business sector should provide IPv6-capable services and platforms, including web hosting and equipment, ensuring accessibility for IPv6 users. Software and hardware vendors should implement IPv6 support in their products to guarantee they are available at production standard when needed. Governments should lead the way by making their own content and services available over IPv6 and encouraging IPv6 deployment efforts in their countries. IPv6 requirements in government procurement policies are critical at this time. Civil society, including organizations and end users, should request that all services they receive from their ISPs and vendors are IPv6-ready, to build demand and ensure competitive availability of IPv6 services in coming years. The NRO's campaign to promote the next generation of Internet Protocol continues to positively impact the Internet community. IPv6 allocations increased by nearly 30% in 2009, as community members continued to recognize the benefits of IPv6. "Many decision makers don't realize how many devices require IP addresses - mobile phones, laptops, servers, routers, the list goes on," said Raul Echeberria, Secretary of the NRO. "The number of available IPv4 addresses is shrinking rapidly, and if the global Internet community fails to recognize this, it will face grave consequences in the very near future. As such, the NRO is working to educate everyone, from network operators to top executives and government representatives, about the importance of IPv6 adoption," added Echeberria. IP addresses are allocated by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), a contract operated by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). IANA distributes IP addresses to RIRs, who in turn issue them to users in their respective regions. "This is the time for the Internet community to act," said Rod Beckstrom, ICANN's President and Chief Executive Officer. "For the global Internet to grow and prosper without limitation, we need to encourage the rapid widespread adoption of the IPv6 protocol." Regards Sunny -- Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi email: sunny at apnic.net External Relations Manager, APNIC sip: sunny at voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net ph/fx: +61 7 3858 3189/99 _______________________________________________ -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jan 21 05:06:46 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:06:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] Less than 10% of IPv4 Addresses Remain Unallocated, In-Reply-To: <701af9f71001202355g28d08e11o97a2379dfc58be6@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f71001202355g28d08e11o97a2379dfc58be6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > I have received the following message from the regional Asian Number > Resource Organization I hate to be pedantic, but there is no "Asian Number Resource Organization". The NRO is a global thingy, with one member per continent. that currently less than 10% of IPv4 addresses > are remaining unallocated. Kindly share your thoughts on this. I think it's just a fact. Today, the IPv4 Exhaustion Counter is at 9%. The > state of IPv6 adoption within developing world countries posed a great > concern during the IGF2009. Perhaps this is a misguided concern: http://blog.icann.org/2008/09/which-region-is-taking-the-lead-in-ipv6-deployment/ says: "AfriNIC, the Regional Internet Registry for Africa and parts of the Indian Ocean, has a higher proportion of networks in its region announcing IPv6 addresses than the others. Africa also has a smaller deployed base but IPv6’s size is designed to support exactly the kind of network growth that highly populated areas, like Africa and Asia will see as their deployed base grows in the next few years." -- 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 Jan 21 05:08:25 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:08:25 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes soon Message-ID: <22EF2090-A999-449D-86A4-E55ACCDEBDAA@ciroap.org> This statement is shrinking as the contentious parts are being removed, but even so it will still be a worthwhile statement, and I think we are getting close to being able to finalise it. Please provide any final comments within the next few days, in the expectation that a 48 hour consensus call may be made next week. Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body. One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards governmental stakeholders as it is at present. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that for instance the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. It is perceived that this was partly due to the cancellation of the September MAG meeting, in favour of an open planning session, ahead of the IGF meeting in Sharm el Sheikh. In this context, we have an observation to make about the proposal that there should be only one MAG meeting in 2010. The fact that a formal decision is yet to be taken on whether the IGF is to be renewed and in what form is not seen by the IGC as a decisive factor against the rotation. However if a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. Another widely-held view within the IGC is that the IGF ought to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. Many of our members believe that this should include the development of an ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. About the IGC The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. -- 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Jan 21 05:20:14 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:20:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Net Neutrality References: <701af9f71001202355g28d08e11o97a2379dfc58be6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AF1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI Interesting Joint Statement Google & Verizon http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6015527661 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jan 21 06:38:27 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:08:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes In-Reply-To: <22EF2090-A999-449D-86A4-E55ACCDEBDAA@ciroap.org> References: <22EF2090-A999-449D-86A4-E55ACCDEBDAA@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B583CB3.8000609@itforchange.net> Can we also add a sentence like MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members plus outsiders, to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF. This more or less corresponds to similar demands contained in a number of earlier statements of the IGC. The above can be added in the para Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program..... Parminder Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > This statement is shrinking as the contentious parts are being > removed, but even so it will still be a worthwhile statement, and I > think we are getting close to being able to finalise it. Please > provide any final comments within the next few days, in the > expectation that a 48 hour consensus call may be made next week. > > *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting > of the IGF* > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the > continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a > multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public > policy issues. However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be > extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we > believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of > incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an > institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally > convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a > Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of > Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to > the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the > composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should > be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than > being slanted towards governmental stakeholders as it is at present. > Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct > role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should > be more transparent. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the > participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the > substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this > responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that for > instance the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders > from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for > the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm > el Sheikh meeting. > > It is perceived that this was partly due to the cancellation of the > September MAG meeting, in favour of an open planning session, ahead of > the IGF meeting in Sharm el Sheikh. In this context, we have an > observation to make about the proposal that there should be only one > MAG meeting in 2010. The fact that a formal decision is yet to be > taken on whether the IGF is to be renewed and in what form is not seen > by the IGC as a decisive factor against the rotation. However if a > rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not > result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set > in stone. > > Another widely-held view within the IGC is that the IGF ought to > improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, > even if these do not amount to recommendations, declarations or > statements (though many of our members would support outputs of such > kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to > ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions > through appropriate mechanisms. > > Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to > maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work > program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. Many > of our members believe that this should include the development of an > ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through > online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. > > Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work > can be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific > working groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there > should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to > present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the > IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, > including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps > multi-stakeholder composition. > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, > which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from > civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender > representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively > engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed > term. > > *About the IGC* > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are > actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the > lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our > mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet > governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual > subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. > More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org > . > > -- > > *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 gpaque at gmail.com Thu Jan 21 07:11:53 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:41:53 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes In-Reply-To: <22EF2090-A999-449D-86A4-E55ACCDEBDAA@ciroap.org> References: <22EF2090-A999-449D-86A4-E55ACCDEBDAA@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B584489.70700@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jan 21 07:24:26 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:54:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AF1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <701af9f71001202355g28d08e11o97a2379dfc58be6@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AF1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4B58477A.8060503@itforchange.net> Hi All What is most interesting in the joint statement is this new concept of Technical Advisory Groups. Seeking technicalisation of areas which are legitimately for political governance is an old trick of the dominant interests, which we already have enough of trouble dealing with in IG arena. And now Google is joining in. I also read dilution of Google's stand on NN, at least in terms of expectations of laying out NN principles and policies by the government and their strict enforcement. (though one would have to see Google's own separate submission on the subject.) From the referred joint statement With respect to traditional Internet access services, the parties agree that differential treatment of Internet traffic by network operators may be either beneficial or harmful to users. Particular practices could be acceptable or unacceptable discrimination, depending on their effect on competition and on users. While we do not necessarily agree on which side of the line various practices may fall, we do agree that such practices should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Their is saying in Hindi - People who live in glass houses do not throw stones at other people's house. Perhaps Google has started to realize the glassiness of its own house. Parminder Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > FYI > Interesting Joint Statement Google & Verizon > > http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6015527661 > > 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 katitza at datos-personales.org Thu Jan 21 08:07:54 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:07:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B58477A.8060503@itforchange.net> References: <701af9f71001202355g28d08e11o97a2379dfc58be6@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719AF1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4B58477A.8060503@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1957478F-3A15-4CCD-B47E-058CCECDC152@datos-personales.org> Parminder: You are right! (old news but pertinent to the discussion) EPIC has signed on to a letter from Public Knowledge to the Federal Communications Commission supporting the FCC's decision to begin public proceedings on preserving an open internet. EPIC joins many other public interest groups who have also expressed support for the FCC's initiative. The FCC's proceedings will focus on proposed rulemaking policies that would preserve open internet. EPIC favors the general principles of "network neutrality" and has called on the FCC to preserve privacy safeguards against measures that Internet Service Providers may use to limit access to the internet. For more information, see also EPIC Deep Packet Inspection http://epic.org/2009/10/public-knowledge-epic-other-pu.html On Jan 21, 2010, at 7:24 AM, Parminder wrote: > Hi All > > What is most interesting in the joint statement is this new concept > of Technical Advisory Groups. Seeking technicalisation of areas > which are legitimately for political governance is an old trick of > the dominant interests, which we already have enough of trouble > dealing with in IG arena. And now Google is joining in. > > I also read dilution of Google's stand on NN, at least in terms of > expectations of laying out NN principles and policies by the > government and their strict enforcement. (though one would have to > see Google's own separate submission on the subject.) > > From the referred joint statement > > With respect to traditional Internet access services, the parties > agree that differential > treatment of Internet traffic by network operators may be either > beneficial or harmful to users. > Particular practices could be acceptable or unacceptable > discrimination, depending on their effect > on competition and on users. While we do not necessarily agree on > which side of the line > various practices may fall, we do agree that such practices should > be evaluated on a case-by-case > basis. > > Their is saying in Hindi - People who live in glass houses do not > throw stones at other people's house. Perhaps Google has started to > realize the glassiness of its own house. > > Parminder > > > Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >> FYI >> Interesting Joint Statement Google & Verizon >> >> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6015527661 >> >> 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 21 09:16:55 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:16:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: <1957478F-3A15-4CCD-B47E-058CCECDC152@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <676967.50220.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I found it interesting that "search neutral" Google was this up on the issue: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=Public+Knowledge+support+of+FCC&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aql=&aqi=&oq= --- On Thu, 1/21/10, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: From: Katitza Rodriguez Subject: Re: [governance] Net Neutrality To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Parminder" Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter at npogroups.org, "_Wolfgang=22?=" Date: Thursday, January 21, 2010, 1:07 PM Parminder: You are right!  (old news but pertinent to the discussion) EPIC has signed on to a letter from Public Knowledge to the Federal Communications Commission supporting the FCC's decision to begin public proceedings on preserving an open internet. EPIC joins many other public interest groups who have also expressed support for the FCC's initiative. The FCC's proceedings will focus on proposed rulemaking policies that would preserve open internet. EPIC favors the general principles of "network neutrality" and has called on the FCC to preserve privacy safeguards against measures that Internet Service Providers may use to limit access to the internet. For more information, see also EPIC Deep Packet Inspection http://epic.org/2009/10/public-knowledge-epic-other-pu.html On Jan 21, 2010, at 7:24 AM, Parminder wrote: Hi All What is most interesting in the joint statement is this new concept of Technical Advisory Groups. Seeking technicalisation of areas which are legitimately for political governance is an old trick of the dominant interests, which we already have enough of trouble dealing with in IG arena. And now Google is joining in. I also read dilution of Google's stand on NN, at least in terms of expectations of laying out NN principles and policies by the government and their strict enforcement. (though one would have to see Google's own separate submission on the subject.) From the referred joint statement With respect to traditional Internet access services, the parties agree that differential treatment of Internet traffic by network operators may be either beneficial or harmful to users. Particular practices could be acceptable or unacceptable discrimination, depending on their effect on competition and on users. While we do not necessarily agree on which side of the line various practices may fall, we do agree that such practices should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Their is  saying in Hindi - People who live in glass houses do not throw stones at other people's house. Perhaps Google has started to realize the glassiness of its own house. Parminder Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: FYI Interesting Joint Statement Google & Verizon http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6015527661 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 -----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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Jan 21 11:42:00 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:42:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes In-Reply-To: 22EF2090-A999-449D-86A4-E55ACCDEBDAA@ciroap.org Message-ID: My constructive dissection: >None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body. I take it that: "... We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body. ..." addresses the ITU's position. Myself, I see no insult in addressing the ITU's position more directly. (Spit it out) Add something like this: And it is genraly felt that if the IGF is to be subsumed by the ITU, then IGC members would prefer the IGF remain independent of the UN umbrella. I am suggesting to leave open 'The-Thought' of an Independent IGF for serval reasons, 1. There may be Other UN Branches (Other than the ITU) that want to hose the IGF 2. It may be that the IGF can be Independent and 'First among Equals' (among all the UN Branches) in respect to Internet Policy, underwritten by the MDG and WSIS Declarations. 3. if the IGF is in fact slated to conclude, the statement establishes the IGC's commitment to the IGF's ongoing Independence. ... Don't be Shy, the Chair at the ITU certainly is not. Give them (Dese & Markus) the fuel to fight. I don't feel you'll insult anyone by being Frank & Direct, in fact now is the time to do just that, the delicate 'Modalities' as Bertrand de La Chapelle puts it can come later. Else where in your statement, you should add something a-kin too "Piercing the corporate Veil", that is make reference to the 'Invisibility' of the UN Umbrella Insider negotiations (UN inside modalities) regarding the determination of the IGF's composition, that should be made real-time and transparent to All. I use the 'Piercing the corporate Veil' analogy because I feel They (the UNSG/UNDESA/ITU/IGF Chairs) have broken their contract with US, in regards to Transparency of the final negotiations. Last Year's transactions/actions were evidence of the fact. --- * Piercing the corporate Veil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 datos-personales.org Thu Jan 21 11:51:33 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:51:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7C7F1A3B-D8BE-4309-A85D-AAC674B51912@datos-personales.org> Greetings: Can someone explain me the ITU-IGF tension? I do not follow ITU. Thanks. On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > My constructive dissection: > >> None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an >> institution; > for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN > Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat > under contract > with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs > (UNDESA). We > do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different > UN body. > > I take it that: "... We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving > underneath > a different UN body. ..." addresses the ITU's position. > Myself, I see no insult in addressing the ITU's position more > directly. (Spit > it out) > > Add something like this: And it is genraly felt that if the IGF is > to be > subsumed by the ITU, then IGC members would prefer the IGF remain > independent > of the UN umbrella. > > I am suggesting to leave open 'The-Thought' of an Independent IGF > for serval > reasons, > 1. There may be Other UN Branches (Other than the ITU) that want to > hose the > IGF > 2. It may be that the IGF can be Independent and 'First among > Equals' (among > all the UN Branches) in respect to Internet Policy, underwritten by > the MDG and > WSIS Declarations. > 3. if the IGF is in fact slated to conclude, the statement > establishes the > IGC's commitment to the IGF's ongoing Independence. > ... > Don't be Shy, the Chair at the ITU certainly is not. Give them (Dese > & Markus) > the fuel to fight. > I don't feel you'll insult anyone by being Frank & Direct, in fact > now is the > time to do just that, the delicate 'Modalities' as Bertrand de La > Chapelle puts > it can come later. > > Else where in your statement, you should add something a-kin too > "Piercing the > corporate Veil", that is make reference to the 'Invisibility' of the > UN > Umbrella Insider negotiations (UN inside modalities) regarding the > determination of the IGF's composition, that should be made real- > time and > transparent to All. > > I use the 'Piercing the corporate Veil' analogy because I feel They > (the > UNSG/UNDESA/ITU/IGF Chairs) have broken their contract with US, in > regards to > Transparency of the final negotiations. Last Year's transactions/ > actions were > evidence of the fact. > --- > > * Piercing the corporate Veil > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 21 12:11:02 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:11:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes In-Reply-To: <7C7F1A3B-D8BE-4309-A85D-AAC674B51912@datos-personales.org> References: ,<7C7F1A3B-D8BE-4309-A85D-AAC674B51912@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CB5D@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Katitza, It's a long story; beginning in 1865. But to make it short, once upon a time government ministries and major telcos had the world of comm to themselves & ITU was their hang-out. The world changed; ITU has been playing catch-up ever since to resume its rightful place. ITU started and hosted WSIS toward that end; and any output like IGF belongs to ITU in their opinion. A minor detail is that civil society may be an invited guest but has no place at an ITU table. So there's no tension, ITU is a fine organization - they were enlightened enough to get WSIS going. Got it? Of course someone else may fill in on more current events, but this is what it's about. Lee ________________________________________ From: Katitza Rodriguez [katitza at datos-personales.org] Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:51 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes Greetings: Can someone explain me the ITU-IGF tension? I do not follow ITU. Thanks. On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > My constructive dissection: > >> None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an >> institution; > for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN > Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat > under contract > with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs > (UNDESA). We > do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different > UN body. > > I take it that: "... We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving > underneath > a different UN body. ..." addresses the ITU's position. > Myself, I see no insult in addressing the ITU's position more > directly. (Spit > it out) > > Add something like this: And it is genraly felt that if the IGF is > to be > subsumed by the ITU, then IGC members would prefer the IGF remain > independent > of the UN umbrella. > > I am suggesting to leave open 'The-Thought' of an Independent IGF > for serval > reasons, > 1. There may be Other UN Branches (Other than the ITU) that want to > hose the > IGF > 2. It may be that the IGF can be Independent and 'First among > Equals' (among > all the UN Branches) in respect to Internet Policy, underwritten by > the MDG and > WSIS Declarations. > 3. if the IGF is in fact slated to conclude, the statement > establishes the > IGC's commitment to the IGF's ongoing Independence. > ... > Don't be Shy, the Chair at the ITU certainly is not. Give them (Dese > & Markus) > the fuel to fight. > I don't feel you'll insult anyone by being Frank & Direct, in fact > now is the > time to do just that, the delicate 'Modalities' as Bertrand de La > Chapelle puts > it can come later. > > Else where in your statement, you should add something a-kin too > "Piercing the > corporate Veil", that is make reference to the 'Invisibility' of the > UN > Umbrella Insider negotiations (UN inside modalities) regarding the > determination of the IGF's composition, that should be made real- > time and > transparent to All. > > I use the 'Piercing the corporate Veil' analogy because I feel They > (the > UNSG/UNDESA/ITU/IGF Chairs) have broken their contract with US, in > regards to > Transparency of the final negotiations. Last Year's transactions/ > actions were > evidence of the fact. > --- > > * Piercing the corporate Veil > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu Jan 21 12:36:55 2010 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:36:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN Nairobi Meeting in Doubt Due to Security Concerns In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CB5D@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: ,<7C7F1A3B-D8BE-4309-A85D-AAC674B51912@datos-personales.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CB5D@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <332577.95354.qm@web58905.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Hi all, This may be of interest to some... Cheers David ICANN Nairobi Meeting in Doubt Due to Security Concerns Rumours have been circulating in recent days that ICANN are reconsidering holding their meeting in Nairobi in March. These rumours have been confirmed to be more than that with ICANN announcing they will be holding a special meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors on 22 January. http://goldsteinreport.com/article.php?article=10146 http://www.domainpulse.com/2010/01/21/icann-nairobi-meeting-in-doubt-due-to-security-concerns/ http://www.domainnews.com/en/icann-nairobi-meeting-in-doubt-due-to-security-concerns.html --------- David Goldstein email: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au web: http://davidgoldstein.tel/ http://goldsteinreport.com/ phone: +61 418 228 605 - mobile; +61 2 9665 5773 - office/home "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery __________________________________________________________________________________ See what's on at the movies in your area. Find out now: http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 21 14:19:47 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:19:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN Nairobi Meeting in Doubt Due to Security In-Reply-To: <332577.95354.qm@web58905.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <7C7F1A3B-D8BE-4309-A85D-AAC674B51912@datos-personales.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CB5D@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <332577.95354.qm@web58905.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: David, On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:36 PM, David Goldstein < goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Hi all, > > This may be of interest to some... > It is has been a topic of discussion here in Kenya. > > Cheers > David > > ICANN Nairobi Meeting in Doubt Due to Security Concerns > Rumours have been circulating in recent days that ICANN are reconsidering I have heard no discussion of "reconsideration". AFAIK, this whole contretemps was sparked off by a tweet from Rod Beckstrom, in response to a tweet from Rafik regarding a small, isolated skirmish last Friday in central Nairobi. The announcement says: "The purpose of the board meeting is to assess plans for the upcoming meeting in Nairobi, and to consider the security concerns raised by community members in light of recent events." Now this may mean moving the meeting location to a more suburban one, but I seriously doubt that it would not be held here. Let's not jump to any conclusions or spread any more unsubstantiated rumors about this, Kenyan stakeholders are upset enough as it is about ICANN possibly moving the meeting. The mini riot here last week was so small that I didn't hear about it until two days after it had occurred. The causes of the unrest are not the same as the widespread violence of two years ago in Kenya. Mountain. Molehill. -- 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Jan 21 19:48:42 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:48:42 +0500 Subject: [governance] Less than 10% of IPv4 Addresses Remain Unallocated, In-Reply-To: References: <701af9f71001202355g28d08e11o97a2379dfc58be6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f71001211648l25deacddne9949950c943fd06@mail.gmail.com> Hi, Yes there is just one NRO, just to clarify your comment, for my region's 'Asian' allocation of Number Resources passed on from IANA, we have an Asian body that is a member of the NRO called APNIC Asia Pacific Network Information Centre and the news was forwarded from what I receive from them on a regular basis. Here is the APNIC IPv4 address block allocation. For us we will always refer to it as the Asian NRO because that is whom our region interacts with, its quite expensive though, the Malaysian guy at IGF2009 was right, we need more decentralization of the NRO and regional allocators :o) Two /8s allocated to APNIC from IANA (1/8 and 27/8) _______________________________________________________________________ The information in this announcement is to enable the Internet community to update network configurations, such as routing filters, where required. APNIC received the following IPv4 address blocks from IANA in January 2010 and will be making allocations from these ranges in the near future: 001/8 027/8 Reachability and routability testing of the new prefixes will commence soon. The daily report will be published at the usual URL: http://www.ris.ripe.net/debogon For more information on the resources administered by APNIC, please see: http://www.apnic.net/db/ranges.html For information on the minimum allocation sizes within address ranges administered by APNIC, please see: http://www.apnic.net/db/min-alloc.html Please be aware, there are now just twenty-four /8s remaining in IANA's unallocated IPv4 address pool. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact the APNIC helpdesk helpdesk at apnic.net Kind regards, Elly On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 3:06 PM, McTim wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> Hi Everyone, >> >> I have received the following message from the regional Asian Number >> Resource Organization > > I hate to be pedantic, but there is no "Asian Number > Resource Organization".  The NRO is a global thingy, with one member > per continent. > > that currently less than 10% of IPv4 addresses >> are remaining unallocated. Kindly share your thoughts on this. > > I think it's just a fact.  Today, the IPv4 Exhaustion Counter is at 9%. > > > The >> state of IPv6 adoption within developing world countries posed a great >> concern during the IGF2009. > > Perhaps this is a misguided concern: > > http://blog.icann.org/2008/09/which-region-is-taking-the-lead-in-ipv6-deployment/ >  says: > > "AfriNIC, the Regional Internet Registry for Africa and parts of the > Indian Ocean, has a higher proportion of networks in its region > announcing IPv6 addresses than the others. Africa also has a smaller > deployed base but IPv6’s size is designed to support exactly the kind > of network growth that highly populated areas, like Africa and Asia > will see as their deployed base grows in the next few years." > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel > -- 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Jan 21 20:04:59 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:04:59 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes In-Reply-To: <22EF2090-A999-449D-86A4-E55ACCDEBDAA@ciroap.org> References: <22EF2090-A999-449D-86A4-E55ACCDEBDAA@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <701af9f71001211704s1d3bf47ev986f5f57ddaea7b9@mail.gmail.com> Hi Everyone, Very good effort. A few suggestions if possible. I would however like to add that I thought we weren't being heard in the Open Consultations and MAG but I see that we are missing out something I've continuously requested and its not just me but I saw a great amount of support from our group at OCs and MAG meetings and our members have been working towards it too. We are missing out the Development Agenda of IG in the fourth paragraph and I would like to request you to please include it as part of this statement and I don't see any reason why it should be left out and should be mentioned right after Human Rights as: "of human rights and development agendas" or "of human rights agenda and a development agenda" in the following: Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that for instance the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. Secondly, in the second last paragraph: "Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition." I would suggest not to include the word "Other" and instead accept this statement to be issued as that "IGC also believes". This is a full statement from IGC being sent to the IGF Secretariat, the statement in its own structure should not be a divided consensus. IF we all are approving of this statement to be issued in consensus of IGC members, it should be from an absolute IGC membership without mentioning that our members are divided/partitioned within this statement. I thought that IGC statements are IGC statements not a few member this and a few member that and I believe we have all been discussing a great deal of issues in the same sense but in different words of understanding and explanation? It would be very appropriate to change the following starting statements in various paragraphs to absolute IGC ownership as a whole group and not a divided one: - Another widely-held view within the IGC - Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC - Others believe that the main responsibility The above are necessary because I am yet to see any statement from any other stakeholder groups of the multistakeholderism where members stand divided in their statements? Hard to find any! On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > This statement is shrinking as the contentious parts are being removed, but > even so it will still be a worthwhile statement, and I think we are getting > close to being able to finalise it.  Please provide any final comments > within the next few days, in the expectation that a 48 hour consensus call > may be made next week. > Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the > IGF > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of > the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the > discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.  However if, as we > hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a > number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, > continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its > inauguration in 2006. > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an > institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by > the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under > contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs > (UNDESA).  We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a > different UN body. > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition > of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly > divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards > governmental stakeholders as it is at present.  Many also believe that the > stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, > and that MAG discussions should be more transparent. > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of > stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF > meetings.  Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC > was surprised that for instance the very strongly and widely expressed views > of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights > agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the > Sharm el Sheikh meeting. > It is perceived that this was partly due to the cancellation of the > September MAG meeting, in favour of an open planning session, ahead of > the IGF meeting in Sharm el Sheikh.  In this context, we have an observation > to make about the proposal that there should be only one MAG meeting in > 2010.  The fact that a formal decision is yet to be taken on whether the > IGF is to be renewed and in what form is not seen by the IGC as a decisive > factor against the rotation.  However if a rotation does not take place, > care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the > Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. > Another widely-held view within the IGC is that the IGF ought to improve its > orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do > not amount to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of > our members would support outputs of such kinds).  Whatever form its outputs > take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to > relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. > Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to maximise > its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program, > rather than being limited to a single annual meeting.  Many of our members > believe that this should include the development of an ongoing work program > for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and > intersessional and regional meetings. > Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can be > left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working > groups).  In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better > mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the > IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent > standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, > and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which > reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil > society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation.  We > look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in > the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > About the IGC > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are actively > engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the > World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote > global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It > now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who > have subscribed to its Charter.  More about our coalition can be found at > http://www.igcaucus.org. > > -- > > 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 > -- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jan 21 23:49:28 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:49:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] Less than 10% of IPv4 Addresses Remain Unallocated, In-Reply-To: <701af9f71001211648l25deacddne9949950c943fd06@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f71001202355g28d08e11o97a2379dfc58be6@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71001211648l25deacddne9949950c943fd06@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Fouad, On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Hi, > > Yes there is just one NRO, just to clarify your comment, for my > region's 'Asian' allocation of Number Resources passed on from IANA, > we have an Asian body that is a member of the NRO called APNIC Asia > Pacific Network Information Centre and the news was forwarded from > what I receive from them on a regular basis. Here is the APNIC IPv4 > address block allocation. For us we will always refer to it as the > Asian NRO The term NRO has been around for only ~7 years, while the term RIR has been around for a lot longer. You can call it what you will, of course. > because that is whom our region interacts with, its quite > expensive though What is expensive? I suspect you think that it is the cost of an IPv4 address to an End User. This cost is NOT determined by the RIRs in any way, these costs are set by the Local Internet Registry. If you think that these costs would be reduced by the implementation of CIRs, then I suspect you haven't really thought critically about the issue. The RIRs allocate and assign IPv6 addresses in a way that could not be cheaper. Initially, fees were waived across all the RIRs in a bid to promote IPv6 adoption. If you believe Milton's latest work on IPv6 costs, each LIR (in African and Latin America/Caribbean) pays ~4 US cents per /48 (there are 65536 /48s in a default alloc of /32). For APNIC, the calculation is slightly more complex (1180 AUD x 1.3(log(addresses)-22)2,3). No matter how you calculate, no matter which region, we are talking about, IPv6 addresses very small fractions of one US cent per IPv6 address. NB: In Ipv6 land, we think in terms of sunets and not individual addresses. > , the Malaysian guy at IGF2009 was right, we need more > decentralization of the NRO and regional allocators :o) > Now I now you are just trying to wind me up, as this is a disastrous idea for your DA in IG. I'm sure you have read my CircleID post about this, but if not, you should: http://www.circleid.com/posts/country_internet_registries_one_african_perspective The most important thing that an RIR does that a CIR may not do is to provide a truly bottom up, transparent and open PDP for numbering policies. CS should embrace this as a BP in IG. It is THE ideal CS way to do things. > Two /8s allocated to APNIC from IANA (1/8 and 27/8) > These are the latest allocs only, to see the full list of v4 allocs to APNIC, go here: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml or http://www.apnic.net/db/ranges.html -- 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Jan 22 03:50:16 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:50:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes In-Reply-To: <701af9f71001211704s1d3bf47ev986f5f57ddaea7b9@mail.gmail.com> References: <22EF2090-A999-449D-86A4-E55ACCDEBDAA@ciroap.org> <701af9f71001211704s1d3bf47ev986f5f57ddaea7b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <79F813D7-5758-41D6-B6D0-481B60484AEA@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi On Jan 22, 2010, at 2:04 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > We are missing out the Development Agenda of IG in the fourth > paragraph and I would like to request you to please include it as part > of this statement and I don't see any reason why it should be left out > and should be mentioned right after Human Rights as: "of human rights > and development agendas" or "of human rights agenda and a development > agenda" in the following: I would be very happy to have a statement showing support for the development agenda concept as a cross cutting thematic, and we seem to be getting somewhere at least in part with respect to a main session at Vilnius. But I'm not sure it's best to introduce the point in a complaint sentence about MAG not doing whatever we asked in Sharm, especially because I don't know whether the DA concept was fully raised, discussed and then ignored/rejected in MAG. Can our MAGites please clarify? If that didn't occur, then I'd reframe it as a proposal rather than a complaint, along the lines of IGC has issued a number of statements inter alia supporting this theme, its members have organized a number of workshops on it, and we continue to believe it would be a productive avenue for the IGF to pursue going forward, particularly with respect to promoting greater developing country participation. Or whatever. Greeting from Wolfgang's ICANN Studienkreis in Barcelona, where we had a nice debate yesterday on enhanced cooperation, intergovernmentalist maneuvers, et al...today new gTLDs and IDNs.. 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Jan 22 07:20:48 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:20:48 +0500 Subject: [governance] Less than 10% of IPv4 Addresses Remain Unallocated, In-Reply-To: References: <701af9f71001202355g28d08e11o97a2379dfc58be6@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71001211648l25deacddne9949950c943fd06@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f71001220420t1d3a2d2ai495ee792d03ecf3f@mail.gmail.com> Hi, That is actually a mis-perception. It costs to join APNIC and receive number resources. http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/how-much-does-it-cost If you visit the APNIC frontpage at http://www.apnic.net, you will see under the heading Internet Resources: How Much Does it Cost? and you will see the structure they have. All ISPs and service providers in the region have to buy their membership and then this trickles down to the end-users as well. Secondly there is no system for Civil Society and Non-Commercial User engagement, more or less, a structure coming down from the parent number resource system. Actually its sold to APNIC Members that charge quite a fees that in most cases is far more than the amount of income for many in our part of the world. Have a look at the Membership Charges of APNIC. The perception you shared is what is commonly shared amongst the Internet community from the developed world. Its not an apple pie for us, really, we have some really tough problems here. Its not how critically we think but what resources we have access to without Moolah (money) in between. The system is very vague indeed for the people that see it from outside but from the inside, you pay, you get. I rest my case. On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 9:49 AM, McTim wrote: > Fouad, > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Yes there is just one NRO, just to clarify your comment, for my >> region's 'Asian' allocation of Number Resources passed on from IANA, >> we have an Asian body that is a member of the NRO called APNIC Asia >> Pacific Network Information Centre and the news was forwarded from >> what I receive from them on a regular basis. Here is the APNIC IPv4 >> address block allocation. >> >> For us we will always refer to it as the >> Asian NRO > > The term NRO has been around for only ~7 years, while the term RIR has been > around for a lot longer.  You can call it what you will, of course. > >> >> because that is whom our region interacts with, its quite >> expensive though > > What is expensive? I suspect you think that it is the cost of an IPv4 > address to an End User.  This cost is NOT determined by the RIRs in any way, > these costs are set by the Local Internet Registry.  If you think that these > costs would be reduced by the implementation of CIRs, then I suspect you > haven't really thought critically about the issue. > > The RIRs allocate and assign IPv6 addresses in a way that could not be > cheaper.  Initially, fees were waived across all the RIRs in a bid to > promote IPv6 adoption.  If you believe Milton's latest work on IPv6 costs, > each LIR (in African and Latin America/Caribbean) pays ~4 US cents per /48 > (there are 65536 /48s in a default alloc of /32).  For APNIC, the > calculation is slightly more complex (1180 AUD x 1.3(log(addresses)-22)2,3). > > No matter how you calculate, no  matter which region, we are talking about, > IPv6 addresses very small fractions of one US cent per IPv6 address.  NB: In > Ipv6 land, we think in terms of sunets and not individual addresses. > > >> >> , the Malaysian guy at IGF2009 was right, we need more >> decentralization of the NRO and regional allocators :o) > > Now I now you are just trying to wind me up, as this is a disastrous idea > for your DA in IG.  I'm sure you have read my CircleID post about this, but > if not, you should: > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/country_internet_registries_one_african_perspective > > The most important thing that an RIR does that a CIR may not do is to > provide a truly bottom up, transparent and open PDP for numbering policies. > CS should embrace this as a BP in IG.  It is THE ideal CS way to do things. > >> >> Two /8s allocated to APNIC from IANA (1/8 and 27/8) > > These are the latest allocs only, to see the full list of v4 allocs to > APNIC, go here: > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml > > or > > http://www.apnic.net/db/ranges.html > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jan 22 07:51:08 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:51:08 +0300 Subject: [governance] Less than 10% of IPv4 Addresses Remain Unallocated, In-Reply-To: <701af9f71001220420t1d3a2d2ai495ee792d03ecf3f@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f71001202355g28d08e11o97a2379dfc58be6@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71001211648l25deacddne9949950c943fd06@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71001220420t1d3a2d2ai495ee792d03ecf3f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Fouad, On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Hi, > That is actually a mis-perception. It costs to join APNIC and receive > number resources. > I labor under no misconception regarding how the RIRs operate. I am am active member of several RIR mailing lists. Today for example, I have received a dozen or more mail from ARIN, RIPE and AfrINIC lists. > http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/how-much-does-it-cost > > If you visit the APNIC frontpage at http://www.apnic.net, you will see > under the heading Internet Resources: How Much Does it Cost? and you > will see the structure they have. All ISPs and service providers in > the region have to buy their membership and then this trickles down to > the end-users as well. Local Internet Registries should operate on a cost recovery basis, some do and some inevitably make IP addresses a profit center. > Secondly there is no system for Civil Society > and Non-Commercial User engagement This is where the misconception is entirely yours. Anyone can join the policy discussion lists and have an impact on Internet numbering resource policy. Currently, I do not represent any ISP or LIR, yet participate in developing policies in multiple regions. Really, the system is open to anyone, technically minded or otherwise. Milton's experience in the ARIN region also prove this, as he has had a not insignificant impact on ARIN policy making since he joined the list. > , more or less, a structure coming > down from the parent number resource system. > Nope, completely bottom up. Where do you get these false notions from? > > Actually its sold to APNIC Members that charge quite a fees that in > most cases is far more than the amount of income for many in our part > of the world. Have a look at the Membership Charges of APNIC. > IP addresses are NOT sold. You should read more completely: http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/how-much-does-it-cost "APNIC does not sell Internet resources such as IP addresses. Instead, resources holders are granted the right to use these public resources. However, APNIC charges administration fees to assist in the management of this resource and the provision of services it provides the community." I have tracked their fees for many years, and find their system to be very fair. What you must understand is that for an ISP that wants IP blocks, one does not have to join a RIR to get them, they can simply get an assignment or sub-allocation from their upstream provider. For larger ISPs, the cost of joining and getting an allocation is a tiny fraction of their monthly revenue. It's part of the cost of doing business, like serving tea to the staff (I know because the last ISP I worked for actually had a larger tea/sugar/milk budget than for the AfriNIC fees). > > The perception you shared is what is commonly shared amongst the > Internet community from the developed world. This perception is also widely shared in the developing world. > Its not an apple pie for > us, really, we have some really tough problems here. > Believe me I know what those problems are and work on them daily here in Africa. The RIRs fees are NOT one of the problems. > Its not how critically we think but what resources we have access to > without Moolah (money) in between. The system is very vague indeed for > the people that see it from outside but from the inside, you pay, you > get. > Do you honestly think that adding another layer of bureaucracy would make the system cheaper? > > I rest my case. > I find no merit in your "case". -- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Jan 22 07:56:23 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:56:23 +0900 Subject: [governance] Less than 10% of IPv4 Addresses Remain In-Reply-To: <701af9f71001220420t1d3a2d2ai495ee792d03ecf3f@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f71001202355g28d08e11o97a2379dfc58be6@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71001211648l25deacddne9949950c943fd06@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71001220420t1d3a2d2ai495ee792d03ecf3f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >Hi, >That is actually a mis-perception. It costs to join APNIC and receive >number resources. >http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/how-much-does-it-cost > >If you visit the APNIC frontpage at http://www.apnic.net, you will see >under the heading Internet Resources: How Much Does it Cost? and you >will see the structure they have. All ISPs and service providers in >the region have to buy their membership and then this trickles down to >the end-users as well. Secondly there is no system for Civil Society >and Non-Commercial User engagement, more or less, a structure coming >down from the parent number resource system. Yes there is. Public policy meetings are open. Anyone can speak, raise matters, etc. >Actually its sold to APNIC Members that charge quite a fees that in >most cases is far more than the amount of income for many in our part >of the world. Have a look at the Membership Charges of APNIC. In the AP region addresses are allocated by local Internet registries or ISPs. The fees are for blocks of address space, that those fees might be more than someone's income is not relevant. "Note the following entities cannot receive resources: a legal entity outside of the Asia Pacific with no network operations in the Asia Pacific, or an individual." Individuals pay what the ISPs decide the market will support. >The perception you shared is what is commonly shared amongst the >Internet community from the developed world. Its not an apple pie for >us, really, we have some really tough problems here. I think you are wrong. And McTim works in developing countries building networks with the resources you're talking about. I think he thinks you're wrong too. Adam >Its not how critically we think but what resources we have access to >without Moolah (money) in between. The system is very vague indeed for >the people that see it from outside but from the inside, you pay, you >get. > >I rest my case. > >On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 9:49 AM, McTim wrote: >> Fouad, >> >> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Yes there is just one NRO, just to clarify your comment, for my >>> region's 'Asian' allocation of Number Resources passed on from IANA, >>> we have an Asian body that is a member of the NRO called APNIC Asia >>> Pacific Network Information Centre and the news was forwarded from >>> what I receive from them on a regular basis. Here is the APNIC IPv4 >>> address block allocation. >>> >>> For us we will always refer to it as the >>> Asian NRO >> >> The term NRO has been around for only ~7 years, while the term RIR has been >> around for a lot longer. You can call it what you will, of course. >> >>> >>> because that is whom our region interacts with, its quite >>> expensive though >> >> What is expensive? I suspect you think that it is the cost of an IPv4 >> address to an End User. This cost is NOT determined by the RIRs in any way, >> these costs are set by the Local Internet Registry. If you think that these >> costs would be reduced by the implementation of CIRs, then I suspect you >> haven't really thought critically about the issue. >> >> The RIRs allocate and assign IPv6 addresses in a way that could not be >> cheaper. Initially, fees were waived across all the RIRs in a bid to >> promote IPv6 adoption. If you believe Milton's latest work on IPv6 costs, >> each LIR (in African and Latin America/Caribbean) pays ~4 US cents per /48 >> (there are 65536 /48s in a default alloc of /32). For APNIC, the >> calculation is slightly more complex (1180 AUD x 1.3(log(addresses)-22)2,3). >> >> No matter how you calculate, no matter which region, we are talking about, >> IPv6 addresses very small fractions of one US cent per IPv6 address. NB: In >> Ipv6 land, we think in terms of sunets and not individual addresses. >> >> >>> >>> , the Malaysian guy at IGF2009 was right, we need more >>> decentralization of the NRO and regional allocators :o) > > >> Now I now you are just trying to wind me up, as this is a disastrous idea >> for your DA in IG. I'm sure you have read my CircleID post about this, but >> if not, you should: >> >> >>http://www.circleid.com/posts/country_internet_registries_one_african_perspective >> >> The most important thing that an RIR does that a CIR may not do is to >> provide a truly bottom up, transparent and open PDP for numbering policies. >> CS should embrace this as a BP in IG. It is THE ideal CS way to do things. >> >>> >>> Two /8s allocated to APNIC from IANA (1/8 and 27/8) >> >> These are the latest allocs only, to see the full list of v4 allocs to >> APNIC, go here: >> >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml >> >> or >> >> http://www.apnic.net/db/ranges.html >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route >> indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel >> > > > >-- >Regards. >-------------------------- >Fouad Bajwa >Advisor & Researcher >ICT4D & Internet Governance >Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) >Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) >My Blog: Internet's Governance >http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >Follow my Tweets: >http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >MAG Interview: >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 22 09:09:35 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:09:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Bottom up open to anyone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <937570.70270.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I find this interchange quite interesting.   1. What does the term bottom up mean?  I have never seen a seat filled by a consumer with no credentials in Internet work.   2. Really, the lists are not monitored and censored and are open to anyone?  And Milton is the example of openness and bottom up??   This is a fine "suitable cadre" discussion.     --- On Fri, 1/22/10, McTim dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:. Local Internet Registries should operate on a cost recovery basis, some do and some inevitably make IP addresses a profit center.   Secondly there is no system for Civil Society and Non-Commercial User engagement This is where the misconception is entirely yours.  Anyone can join the policy discussion lists and have an impact on Internet numbering resource policy.  Currently, I do not represent any ISP or LIR, yet participate in developing policies in multiple regions.  Really, the system is open to anyone, technically minded or otherwise.  Milton's experience in the ARIN region also prove this, as he has had a not insignificant impact on ARIN policy making since he joined the list.   , more or less, a structure coming down from the parent number resource system. Nope, completely bottom up.  Where do you get these false notions from?     -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 22 09:12:58 2010 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:12:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] Less than 10% of IPv4 Addresses Remain In-Reply-To: References: <701af9f71001202355g28d08e11o97a2379dfc58be6@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71001211648l25deacddne9949950c943fd06@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71001220420t1d3a2d2ai495ee792d03ecf3f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Fouad, It's worth reading McTim's responses carefully. In particular, there is room in RIR space for anyone who wants to make responsible comments to participate. The RIRs are not closed organizations; they serve the ISPs of the region by administering address allocations for the benefit of their members, ISPs, and ultimately the users. They do have administrative costs that they must recover. However, those costs, as they are distributed down to the tail ISPs, are very minimal compared with almost all other costs involved in being a part of the network (sometimes even including tea and coffee :-) ). One of the most important functions that lists like this can perform, as well as meetings such as IGF, is to ensure that participants understand how the current system works. An accurate understanding of the current system is really important for discussion to lead to useful progress. Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 3:51 PM +0300 1/22/10, McTim wrote: >Fouad, > >On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Fouad Bajwa ><fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote: > >Hi, >That is actually a mis-perception. It costs to join APNIC and receive >number resources. > > >I labor under no misconception regarding how the RIRs operate. > >I am am active member of several RIR mailing lists. Today for >example, I have received a dozen or more mail from ARIN, RIPE and >AfrINIC lists. > > > >http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/how-much-does-it-cost > >If you visit the APNIC frontpage at >http://www.apnic.net, you will see >under the heading Internet Resources: How Much Does it Cost? and you >will see the structure they have. All ISPs and service providers in >the region have to buy their membership and then this trickles down to >the end-users as well. > > >Local Internet Registries should operate on a cost recovery basis, >some do and some inevitably make IP addresses a profit center. > > > >Secondly there is no system for Civil Society >and Non-Commercial User engagement > > >This is where the misconception is entirely yours. Anyone can join >the policy discussion lists and have an impact on Internet numbering >resource policy. Currently, I do not represent any ISP or LIR, yet >participate in developing policies in multiple regions. Really, the >system is open to anyone, technically minded or otherwise. Milton's >experience in the ARIN region also prove this, as he has had a not >insignificant impact on ARIN policy making since he joined the list. > > > >, more or less, a structure coming >down from the parent number resource system. > > >Nope, completely bottom up. Where do you get these false notions from? > > > >Actually its sold to APNIC Members that charge quite a fees that in >most cases is far more than the amount of income for many in our part >of the world. Have a look at the Membership Charges of APNIC. > > >IP addresses are NOT sold. You should read more completely: > >http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/how-much-does-it-cost > >"APNIC does not sell Internet resources such as IP addresses. > >Instead, resources holders are granted the right to use these public >resources. However, APNIC charges administration fees to assist in >the management of this resource and the provision of services it >provides the community." > >I have tracked their fees for many years, and find their system to >be very fair. > >What you must understand is that for an ISP that wants IP blocks, >one does not have to join a RIR to get them, they can simply get an >assignment or sub-allocation from their upstream provider. For >larger ISPs, the cost of joining and getting an allocation is a tiny >fraction of their monthly revenue. It's part of the cost of doing >business, like serving tea to the staff (I know because the last >ISP I worked for actually had a larger tea/sugar/milk budget than >for the AfriNIC fees). > > > >The perception you shared is what is commonly shared amongst the >Internet community from the developed world. > > >This perception is also widely shared in the developing world. > > >Its not an apple pie for >us, really, we have some really tough problems here. > > >Believe me I know what those problems are and work on them daily >here in Africa. The RIRs fees are NOT one of the problems. > > >Its not how critically we think but what resources we have access to >without Moolah (money) in between. The system is very vague indeed for >the people that see it from outside but from the inside, you pay, you >get. > > > >Do you honestly think that adding another layer of bureaucracy would >make the system cheaper? > > > >I rest my case. > > >I find no merit in your "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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 22 09:18:45 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:18:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Less than 10% of IPv4 Addresses Remain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <904605.26040.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> The only error that was made here was the assumption that developed nations were in control and controlling these things.  It is more accurately a closed club of globetrotting elitist carpetbaggers that control these things.  The right to speak may in some way be tolerated.  But there is no way a right for individuals in the civil society to be heard or have a vote. Even on this list, if Ginger is offended you are cut off.  Of course at ApNic it is not tolerated to be a non-cadre member. --- On Fri, 1/22/10, Adam Peake wrote: Individuals pay what the ISPs decide the market will support. >The perception you shared is what is commonly shared amongst the >Internet community from the developed world. Its not an apple pie for >us, really, we have some really tough problems here. I think you are wrong. And McTim works in developing countries building networks with the resources you're talking about. I think he thinks you're wrong too. Adam >Its not how critically we think but what resources we have access to >without Moolah (money) in between. The system is very vague indeed for >the people that see it from outside but from the inside, you pay, you >get. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 22 09:53:51 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:53:51 +0300 Subject: [governance] Less than 10% of IPv4 Addresses Remain In-Reply-To: <904605.26040.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <904605.26040.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > The only error that was made here was the assumption that developed nations > were in control and controlling these things. It is more accurately a > closed club of globetrotting elitist carpetbaggers that control these > things. > If you participated, you would know how wrong you are. > The right to speak may in some way be tolerated. But there is no way a > right for individuals in the civil society to be heard > Everyone has the same opportunity and each voice is given the same weight. Now, if what you say makes sense, then perhaps people will give your voice more consideration. > or have a vote. > Voting isn't done, decisions are reached by consensus. > Even on this list, if Ginger is offended you are cut off. > Can you give an example of this? > Of course at ApNic it is not tolerated to be a non-cadre member. > You know not of which you speak. -- 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Jan 22 16:16:08 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:16:08 +1100 Subject: [governance] China Global Times editionial on Google issue Message-ID: This is interesting and worth reading. Similar to arguments about free trade and protectionism. The real stake in "free flow of information" Source: Global Times [04:55 January 22 2010]Comments With her seemingly impassioned speech Thursday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may be said to have raised the stakes in Washington's clash with Beijing over Internet freedom. "We stand for a single Internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas." Clinton's words may sound perfectly right to some in the West, but would be regarded as a new threat by people in other parts of the world. The US campaign for uncensored and free flow of information on an unrestricted Internet is a disguised attempt to impose its values on other cultures in the name of democracy. The hard fact that Clinton has failed to highlight in her speech is that bulk of the information flowing from the US and other Western countries is loaded with aggressive rhetoric against those countries that do not follow their lead. In contrast, in the global information order, countries that are disadvantaged could not produce the massive flow of information required, and could never rival the Western countries in terms of information control and dissemination. Keeping that in mind, it must be realized that when it comes to information content, quantity, direction and flow, there is absolutely no equality and fairness. The online freedom of unrestricted access is, thus, only one-way traffic, contrary to the spirit of democracy and calculated to strengthen a monopoly. Countries disadvantaged by the unequal and undemocratic information flow have to protect their national interest, and take steps toward this. This is essential for their political stability as well as normal conduct of economic and social life. These facts about the difficulties of developing nations, though understood by politicians like Clinton, are not communicated to the people of Western countries. Instead, those politicians publicize and pursue their claims purely from a Western standpoint. This practice is morally unworthy and has been resisted by intellectuals in developing countries. Take Google's threat to pull out of China for example. It has stirred widespread debate among the public in China. The recent poll conducted by huanqiu.com shows a growing number of people voicing opposition to an unregulated or uncensored Google in China. As many as 81 percent of those polled are opposed to Chinese government accepting Google's demands. It is not because the people of China do not want free flow of information or unlimited access to Internet, as in the West. It is just because they recognize the situation that their country is forced to face. Unlike advanced Western countries, Chinese society is still vulnerable to the effect of multifarious information flowing in, especially when it is for creating disorder. Western countries have long indoctrinated non-Western nations on the issue of freedom of speech. It is an aggressive political and diplomatic strategy, rather than a desire for moral values, that has led them to do so. The free flow of information is an universal value treasured in all nations, including China, but the US government's ideological imposition is unacceptable and, for that reason, will not be allowed to succeed. China's real stake in the "free flow of information" is evident in its refusal to be victimized by information imperialism. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Jan 22 17:01:17 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:01:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] RE: China Global Times editionial on Google issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB37CB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Ian, Very surprised you were taken in by this old trick. Unbelievable. This is a reproduction of the old "New world information order" debates in which dictators sought refuge in concepts of "sovereignty" over communication and "unbalanced flows" of information in order to shield themselves and their regimes from criticism and to control dialogue about themselves. OK, when these were small African nations (which nevertheless often had really bad dictators, like Mobutu or Amin) maybe this idea of unbalanced information generation capabilities was a little bit plausible. But when we are talking about China, where the language differs and the size of the market is now larger than any country in the world except the US, this kind of complaint is just the most obvious state-sponsored rationalizations for censorship and a pathetic attempt to use nationalism and the fear of a foreign enemy to paper over repression. The idea that China (or virtually any other country that engages in systematic censorship) is doing it to prortect themselves from domineering foreigners is ridiculous. It is immediately refuted by the fact that the most important forms of censorship and surveillance are directed at internal sources of dissent. I guess you haven't been in China for a while, but the fifty-cent army is not concerned with the pronouncements of Hilary Clinton in English - they monitor and respond to Chinese people speaking to themselves. The Falun Gong is likewise not exactly a foreign force in China, nor are the Tibetans. The claim that 81% of Chinese are supporting the Chinese government against Google is another one of these manufactured polls produiced by whom? The Chinese Ministry of Culture and Propaganda. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 4:16 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] China Global Times editionial on Google issue > > This is interesting and worth reading. Similar to arguments > about free trade > and protectionism. > > The real stake in "free flow of information" > > Source: Global Times [04:55 January 22 2010]Comments > With her seemingly impassioned speech Thursday, US Secretary of State > Hillary Clinton may be said to have raised the stakes in > Washington's clash > with Beijing over Internet freedom. > > "We stand for a single Internet where all of humanity has > equal access to > knowledge and ideas." Clinton's words may sound perfectly > right to some in > the West, but would be regarded as a new threat by people in > other parts of > the world. > > The US campaign for uncensored and free flow of information on an > unrestricted Internet is a disguised attempt to impose its > values on other > cultures in the name of democracy. > > The hard fact that Clinton has failed to highlight in her > speech is that > bulk of the information flowing from the US and other Western > countries is > loaded with aggressive rhetoric against those countries that > do not follow > their lead. > > In contrast, in the global information order, countries that are > disadvantaged could not produce the massive flow of > information required, > and could never rival the Western countries in terms of > information control > and dissemination. > > Keeping that in mind, it must be realized that when it comes > to information > content, quantity, direction and flow, there is absolutely no > equality and > fairness. > > The online freedom of unrestricted access is, thus, only > one-way traffic, > contrary to the spirit of democracy and calculated to > strengthen a monopoly. > > Countries disadvantaged by the unequal and undemocratic > information flow > have to protect their national interest, and take steps > toward this. This is > essential for their political stability as well as normal conduct of > economic and social life. > > These facts about the difficulties of developing nations, > though understood > by politicians like Clinton, are not communicated to the > people of Western > countries. Instead, those politicians publicize and pursue > their claims > purely from a Western standpoint. > > This practice is morally unworthy and has been resisted by > intellectuals in > developing countries. > > Take Google's threat to pull out of China for example. It has stirred > widespread debate among the public in China. The recent poll > conducted by > huanqiu.com shows a growing number of people voicing opposition to an > unregulated or uncensored Google in China. As many as 81 > percent of those > polled are opposed to Chinese government accepting Google's demands. > > It is not because the people of China do not want free flow > of information > or unlimited access to Internet, as in the West. It is just > because they > recognize the situation that their country is forced to face. > > Unlike advanced Western countries, Chinese society is still > vulnerable to > the effect of multifarious information flowing in, especially > when it is for > creating disorder. > > Western countries have long indoctrinated non-Western nations > on the issue > of freedom of speech. It is an aggressive political and > diplomatic strategy, > rather than a desire for moral values, that has led them to do so. > > The free flow of information is an universal value treasured > in all nations, > including China, but the US government's ideological imposition is > unacceptable and, for that reason, will not be allowed to succeed. > > China's real stake in the "free flow of information" is evident in its > refusal to be victimized by information imperialism. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 22 17:59:40 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 09:59:40 +1100 Subject: [governance] RE: China Global Times editorial on Google issue In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB37CB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi Milton, I only said it was interesting and worth reading. But you have raised the ghost of the new world information order (circa 1983) so let me say that, to my reading and involvement, NWICO was about imbalanced commercial domination of radio and television across the world, not about dictators concepts of sovereignty. Re-read Macbride Report itself (Many Voices One World), not the US commercial media coverage and interpretations of the time, and I think you will find that it is just possible, then and now, for dominant commercial media to influence peoples thinking and distort the truth. (Or state dominated media for that matter). Very surprised you were taken by the old trick of believing NWICO was about dictatorships and sovereignty. But then, you do live in a country whose mass information flows at the time, driven by commercial radio and tv licencees, were more concerned with protection of their own interests than in propagation of either truth or balanced debate. Which of course is why the free flow of information on the Internet is important. That offers the promise of breaking down media ownership distortions, particularly with a younger generation who don't watch tv or listen to radio. So I think we agree that free flow of information on the internet is vitally important - where we might have different emphases is when we start to examine whether dominant commercial interests (or governmental for that matter) start to distort this flow and what governance and policy mechanisms might be suitable on a global level to make sure the Internet stays open. Here, I am not happy with unilateral government actions such as those of China. But nor am I happy with the concept of an unregulated commercial media anarchy with no checks and balances. Ian Peter > From: Milton L Mueller > Reply-To: , Milton L Mueller > Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:01:17 -0500 > To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" , Ian Peter > > Subject: [governance] RE: China Global Times editionial on Google issue > > > Ian, > Very surprised you were taken in by this old trick. Unbelievable. > This is a reproduction of the old "New world information order" debates in > which dictators sought refuge in concepts of "sovereignty" over communication > and "unbalanced flows" of information in order to shield themselves and their > regimes from criticism and to control dialogue about themselves. > > OK, when these were small African nations (which nevertheless often had really > bad dictators, like Mobutu or Amin) maybe this idea of unbalanced information > generation capabilities was a little bit plausible. But when we are talking > about China, where the language differs and the size of the market is now > larger than any country in the world except the US, this kind of complaint is > just the most obvious state-sponsored rationalizations for censorship and a > pathetic attempt to use nationalism and the fear of a foreign enemy to paper > over repression. > > The idea that China (or virtually any other country that engages in systematic > censorship) is doing it to prortect themselves from domineering foreigners is > ridiculous. It is immediately refuted by the fact that the most important > forms of censorship and surveillance are directed at internal sources of > dissent. I guess you haven't been in China for a while, but the fifty-cent > army is not concerned with the pronouncements of Hilary Clinton in English - > they monitor and respond to Chinese people speaking to themselves. The Falun > Gong is likewise not exactly a foreign force in China, nor are the Tibetans. > > The claim that 81% of Chinese are supporting the Chinese government against > Google is another one of these manufactured polls produiced by whom? The > Chinese Ministry of Culture and Propaganda. > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 4:16 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] China Global Times editionial on Google issue >> >> This is interesting and worth reading. Similar to arguments >> about free trade >> and protectionism. >> >> The real stake in "free flow of information" >> >> Source: Global Times [04:55 January 22 2010]Comments >> With her seemingly impassioned speech Thursday, US Secretary of State >> Hillary Clinton may be said to have raised the stakes in >> Washington's clash >> with Beijing over Internet freedom. >> >> "We stand for a single Internet where all of humanity has >> equal access to >> knowledge and ideas." Clinton's words may sound perfectly >> right to some in >> the West, but would be regarded as a new threat by people in >> other parts of >> the world. >> >> The US campaign for uncensored and free flow of information on an >> unrestricted Internet is a disguised attempt to impose its >> values on other >> cultures in the name of democracy. >> >> The hard fact that Clinton has failed to highlight in her >> speech is that >> bulk of the information flowing from the US and other Western >> countries is >> loaded with aggressive rhetoric against those countries that >> do not follow >> their lead. >> >> In contrast, in the global information order, countries that are >> disadvantaged could not produce the massive flow of >> information required, >> and could never rival the Western countries in terms of >> information control >> and dissemination. >> >> Keeping that in mind, it must be realized that when it comes >> to information >> content, quantity, direction and flow, there is absolutely no >> equality and >> fairness. >> >> The online freedom of unrestricted access is, thus, only >> one-way traffic, >> contrary to the spirit of democracy and calculated to >> strengthen a monopoly. >> >> Countries disadvantaged by the unequal and undemocratic >> information flow >> have to protect their national interest, and take steps >> toward this. This is >> essential for their political stability as well as normal conduct of >> economic and social life. >> >> These facts about the difficulties of developing nations, >> though understood >> by politicians like Clinton, are not communicated to the >> people of Western >> countries. Instead, those politicians publicize and pursue >> their claims >> purely from a Western standpoint. >> >> This practice is morally unworthy and has been resisted by >> intellectuals in >> developing countries. >> >> Take Google's threat to pull out of China for example. It has stirred >> widespread debate among the public in China. The recent poll >> conducted by >> huanqiu.com shows a growing number of people voicing opposition to an >> unregulated or uncensored Google in China. As many as 81 >> percent of those >> polled are opposed to Chinese government accepting Google's demands. >> >> It is not because the people of China do not want free flow >> of information >> or unlimited access to Internet, as in the West. It is just >> because they >> recognize the situation that their country is forced to face. >> >> Unlike advanced Western countries, Chinese society is still >> vulnerable to >> the effect of multifarious information flowing in, especially >> when it is for >> creating disorder. >> >> Western countries have long indoctrinated non-Western nations >> on the issue >> of freedom of speech. It is an aggressive political and >> diplomatic strategy, >> rather than a desire for moral values, that has led them to do so. >> >> The free flow of information is an universal value treasured >> in all nations, >> including China, but the US government's ideological imposition is >> unacceptable and, for that reason, will not be allowed to succeed. >> >> China's real stake in the "free flow of information" is evident in its >> refusal to be victimized by information imperialism. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 22 18:26:05 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 01:26:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] And yet Google again: Online petition against GoogleMaps "Arabian Gulf" instead of "Persian Gulf" Message-ID: One thing is for sure: good or bad, Google is getting more than its fair share of publicity! We, the undersigned, through this letter, protest your irresponsible, unscientific actions, and demand an immediate and unconditional deletion of “Arabian Gulf” from Google Earth. Arbitrarily designating the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf is an irresponsible violation of all historical and International standards and would undermine the integrity of Google Earth. 1.197.422 signatures http://www.petitiononline.com/sos02082/petition.html http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?sos02082 You can read about the naming dispute here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute Regards, Rui -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 22 22:27:44 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:27:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] RE: China Global Times editionial on Google issue/John Kerry? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB37CB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <27057.61521.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Milton's comments are pretty much along the lines of my understanding. US and other western locals seem to love to claim some type of right to the love of Freedom. Especially mental intellectual freedoms.  I dare to say where they are most denied you will find the love especially rich.  We are all aware of the addage "absence makes the heart grow fonder", in my experience the phrase is overrated for the love of another -- but extremely underrated for the love of Freedom.   Chinese governance is moving forward at about a kilometer an hour -- learning at about 50 kilometers per hour.  How long until the people outrun the confines of the road?   Strange sources in strange places but Kerry puts a good deal of passion in this piece and I respect him for that: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/standing-up-for-internet_b_431359.html?alacarte=1 --- On Fri, 1/22/10, Milton L Mueller wrote: From: Milton L Mueller Subject: [governance] RE: China Global Times editionial on Google issue To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" , "'Ian Peter'" Date: Friday, January 22, 2010, 10:01 PM Ian, Very surprised you were taken in by this old trick. Unbelievable. This is a reproduction of the old "New world information order" debates in which dictators sought refuge in concepts of "sovereignty" over communication and "unbalanced flows" of information in order to shield themselves and their regimes from criticism and to control dialogue about themselves. OK, when these were small African nations (which nevertheless often had really bad dictators, like Mobutu or Amin) maybe this idea of unbalanced information generation capabilities was a little bit plausible. But when we are talking about China, where the language differs and the size of the market is now larger than any country in the world except the US, this kind of complaint is just the most obvious state-sponsored rationalizations for censorship and a pathetic attempt to use nationalism and the fear of a foreign enemy to paper over repression. The idea that China (or virtually any other country that engages in systematic censorship) is doing it to prortect themselves from domineering foreigners is ridiculous. It is immediately refuted by the fact that the most important forms of censorship and surveillance are directed at internal sources of dissent. I guess you haven't been in China for a while, but the fifty-cent army is not concerned with the pronouncements of Hilary Clinton in English - they monitor and respond to Chinese people speaking to themselves. The Falun Gong is likewise not exactly a foreign force in China, nor are the Tibetans. The claim that 81% of Chinese are supporting the Chinese government against Google is another one of these manufactured polls produiced by whom? The Chinese Ministry of Culture and Propaganda. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 4:16 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] China Global Times editionial on Google issue > > This is interesting and worth reading. Similar to arguments > about free trade > and protectionism. > > The real stake in "free flow of information" > > Source: Global Times [04:55 January 22 2010]Comments > With her seemingly impassioned speech Thursday, US Secretary of State > Hillary Clinton may be said to have raised the stakes in > Washington's clash > with Beijing over Internet freedom. > > "We stand for a single Internet where all of humanity has > equal access to > knowledge and ideas." Clinton's words may sound perfectly > right to some in > the West, but would be regarded as a new threat by people in > other parts of > the world. > > The US campaign for uncensored and free flow of information on an > unrestricted Internet is a disguised attempt to impose its > values on other > cultures in the name of democracy. > > The hard fact that Clinton has failed to highlight in her > speech is that > bulk of the information flowing from the US and other Western > countries is > loaded with aggressive rhetoric against those countries that > do not follow > their lead. > > In contrast, in the global information order, countries that are > disadvantaged could not produce the massive flow of > information required, > and could never rival the Western countries in terms of > information control > and dissemination. > > Keeping that in mind, it must be realized that when it comes > to information > content, quantity, direction and flow, there is absolutely no > equality and > fairness. > > The online freedom of unrestricted access is, thus, only > one-way traffic, > contrary to the spirit of democracy and calculated to > strengthen a monopoly. > > Countries disadvantaged by the unequal and undemocratic > information flow > have to protect their national interest, and take steps > toward this. This is > essential for their political stability as well as normal conduct of > economic and social life. > > These facts about the difficulties of developing nations, > though understood > by politicians like Clinton, are not communicated to the > people of Western > countries. Instead, those politicians publicize and pursue > their claims > purely from a Western standpoint. > > This practice is morally unworthy and has been resisted by > intellectuals in > developing countries. > > Take Google's threat to pull out of China for example. It has stirred > widespread debate among the public in China. The recent poll > conducted by > huanqiu.com shows a growing number of people voicing opposition to an > unregulated or uncensored Google in China. As many as 81 > percent of those > polled are opposed to Chinese government accepting Google's demands. > > It is not because the people of China do not want free flow > of information > or unlimited access to Internet, as in the West. It is just > because they > recognize the situation that their country is forced to face. > > Unlike advanced Western countries, Chinese society is still > vulnerable to > the effect of multifarious information flowing in, especially > when it is for > creating disorder. > > Western countries have long indoctrinated non-Western nations > on the issue > of freedom of speech. It is an aggressive political and > diplomatic strategy, > rather than a desire for moral values, that has led them to do so. > > The free flow of information is an universal value treasured > in all nations, > including China, but the US government's ideological imposition is > unacceptable and, for that reason, will not be allowed to succeed. > > China's real stake in the "free flow of information" is evident in its > refusal to be victimized by information imperialism. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 22 23:46:45 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:46:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] And yet Google again: Online petition against GoogleMaps "Arabian Gulf" instead of "Persian Gulf" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <233229.85544.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Rui,   I think another thing is for sure. If there is not the constant conflict and taking notice and action of such matters, our base of knowledge will tend toward either sloppy or malevolent thinking. Even if it seems insignificant, much like being ecology minded, we must all take the time to notice and think about such things.  I believe that is usually all it will take to keep us on a good track. --- On Fri, 1/22/10, Rui Correia wrote: From: Rui Correia Subject: [governance] And yet Google again: Online petition against GoogleMaps "Arabian Gulf" instead of "Persian Gulf" To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, January 22, 2010, 11:26 PM One thing is for sure: good or bad, Google is getting more than its fair share of publicity! We, the undersigned, through this letter, protest your irresponsible, unscientific actions, and demand an immediate and unconditional deletion of “Arabian Gulf” from Google Earth. Arbitrarily designating the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf is an irresponsible violation of all historical and International standards and would undermine the integrity of Google Earth. 1.197.422 signatures http://www.petitiononline.com/sos02082/petition.html http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?sos02082 You can read about the naming dispute here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute Regards, Rui -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -----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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Jan 23 04:51:53 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:51:53 +0500 Subject: [governance] Less than 10% of IPv4 Addresses Remain Unallocated, In-Reply-To: References: <701af9f71001202355g28d08e11o97a2379dfc58be6@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71001211648l25deacddne9949950c943fd06@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71001220420t1d3a2d2ai495ee792d03ecf3f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f71001230151s3d63f705p742fbc0d2c99d196@mail.gmail.com> Yes, I am taking notes on this and see how this works, my appreciation and recognition to and for everyone's comments in the end. In my discussions with APNIC staff during the IGF2009, on my question of CS engagement I was referred to the membership page with costs. After being subscribed to APNIC lists for my region for half a decade and reading through the other announcement lists that I subscribe to, I fail to find the missing connection apart from commercial engagements and I know that funds most of the support to the APNIC organization, operations and structure. The scholarships/fellowships to APNIC activities/events/trainings are directed towards members and usually entertains just members because they financially support the process. Isn't it odd that these administrative charges on not mentioned in detail? Misunderstandings arise from lack of key information in these cases. Once again, has anyone seen a list at APNIC on non-commercial user discussion? Please direct me to it as I would like to learn more about their process of non-commercial engagement that the APNIC staff failed to share. Thanking everyone who joined this discussion in advance. On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 7:12 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > Fouad, > It's worth reading McTim's responses carefully.  In particular, there is > room in RIR space for anyone who wants to make responsible comments to > participate.  The RIRs are not closed organizations; they serve the ISPs of > the region by administering address allocations for the benefit of their > members, ISPs, and ultimately the users.  They do have administrative costs > that they must recover.  However, those costs, as they are distributed down > to the tail ISPs, are very minimal compared with almost all other costs > involved in being a part of the network (sometimes even including tea and > coffee  :-)  ). > One of the most important functions that lists like this can perform, as > well as meetings such as IGF, is to ensure that participants understand how > the current system works.  An accurate understanding of the current system > is really important for discussion to lead to useful progress. > Regards, > George > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > At 3:51 PM +0300 1/22/10, McTim wrote: > > Fouad, > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > Hi, > That is actually a mis-perception. It costs to join APNIC and receive > number resources. > > I labor under no misconception regarding how the RIRs operate. > > I am am active member of several RIR mailing lists.  Today for example, I > have received a dozen or more mail from ARIN, RIPE and AfrINIC lists. > > > > http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/how-much-does-it-cost > > If you visit the APNIC frontpage at http://www.apnic.net, you will see > under the heading Internet Resources: How Much Does it Cost? and you > will see the structure they have. All ISPs and service providers in > the region have to buy their membership and then this trickles down to > the end-users as well. > > Local Internet Registries should operate on a cost recovery basis, some do > and some inevitably make IP addresses a profit center. > > > > Secondly there is no system for Civil Society > and Non-Commercial User engagement > > This is where the misconception is entirely yours.  Anyone can join the > policy discussion lists and have an impact on Internet numbering resource > policy.  Currently, I do not represent any ISP or LIR, yet participate in > developing policies in multiple regions.  Really, the system is open to > anyone, technically minded or otherwise.  Milton's experience in the ARIN > region also prove this, as he has had a not insignificant impact on ARIN > policy making since he joined the list. > > > > , more or less, a structure coming > down from the parent number resource system. > > Nope, completely bottom up.  Where do you get these false notions from? > > > Actually its sold to APNIC Members that charge quite a fees that in > most cases is far more than the amount of income for many in our part > of the world. Have a look at the Membership Charges of APNIC. > > IP addresses are NOT sold.  You should read more completely: > > http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/how-much-does-it-cost > > "APNIC does not sell Internet resources such as IP addresses. > > Instead, resources holders are granted the right to use these public > resources. However, APNIC charges administration fees to assist in the > management of this resource and the provision of services it provides the > community." > > I have tracked their fees for many years, and find their system to be very > fair. > > What you must understand is that for an ISP that wants IP blocks, one does > not have to join a RIR to get them, they can simply get an assignment or > sub-allocation from their upstream provider.  For larger ISPs, the cost of > joining and getting an allocation is a tiny fraction of their monthly > revenue.  It's part of the cost of doing business, like serving tea to the > staff  (I know because the last ISP I worked for actually had a larger > tea/sugar/milk budget than for the AfriNIC fees). > > > > The perception you shared is what is commonly shared amongst the > Internet community from the developed world. > > This perception is also widely shared in the developing world. > > > Its not an apple pie for > us, really, we have some really tough problems here. > > Believe me I know what those problems are and work on them daily here in > Africa.  The RIRs fees are NOT one of the problems. > > Its not how critically we think but what resources we have access to > without Moolah (money) in between. The system is very vague indeed for > the people that see it from outside but from the inside, you pay, you > get. > > > Do you honestly think that adding another layer of bureaucracy would make > the system cheaper? > > > I rest my case. > > I find no merit in your "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 > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Jan 23 05:55:10 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:55:10 -0200 Subject: [governance] And yet Google again: Online petition against GoogleMaps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B5AD58E.2060200@cafonso.ca> Strange... for us here in BR it had always been the Persian Gulf, and continues to be so. How did this change happen? --c.a. Rui Correia wrote: > One thing is for sure: good or bad, Google is getting more than its fair > share of publicity! > > We, the undersigned, through this letter, protest your irresponsible, > unscientific actions, and demand an immediate and unconditional deletion > of “Arabian Gulf” from Google Earth. > > Arbitrarily designating the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf is an > irresponsible violation of all historical and International standards > and would undermine the integrity of Google Earth. > > 1.197.422 signatures > > http://www.petitiononline.com/sos02082/petition.html > http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?sos02082 > > You can read about the naming dispute here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute > > Regards, > > Rui > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tnacli at yahoo.com Sat Jan 23 06:07:37 2010 From: tnacli at yahoo.com (Teresa Nacli-Napoli) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:07:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] And yet Google again: Online petition against GoogleMaps In-Reply-To: <4B5AD58E.2060200@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <329558.94834.qm@web55406.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Just a smart way to change history, they are doing this for years with no complains. How about the Golan Heights that belongs to Syria and they show as Israeli land?  They should say OCCUPATION and Israel is not  complying with  UN resolution 242 since 1967 . ????? --- On Sat, 1/23/10, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: From: Carlos A. Afonso Subject: Re: [governance] And yet Google again: Online petition against GoogleMaps To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Rui Correia" Date: Saturday, January 23, 2010, 5:55 AM Strange... for us here in BR it had always been the Persian Gulf, and continues to be so. How did this change happen? --c.a. Rui Correia wrote: > One thing is for sure: good or bad, Google is getting more than its fair > share of publicity! > > We, the undersigned, through this letter, protest your irresponsible, > unscientific actions, and demand an immediate and unconditional deletion > of “Arabian Gulf” from Google Earth. > > Arbitrarily designating the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf is an > irresponsible violation of all historical and International standards > and would undermine the integrity of Google Earth. > > 1.197.422 signatures > > http://www.petitiononline.com/sos02082/petition.html > http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?sos02082 > > You can read about the naming dispute here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute > > Regards, > > Rui > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 23 06:17:39 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 09:17:39 -0200 Subject: [governance] And yet Google again: Online petition against GoogleMaps In-Reply-To: <329558.94834.qm@web55406.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <329558.94834.qm@web55406.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B5ADAD3.9080901@cafonso.ca> Yes... but I just checked, and, first, the UN says it continues to be officially "Persian Gulf", and if you search Google Earth for both "Persian Gulf" and "Arabian Gulf", you get to the same general place -- the Gulf. Why the fuzz, really? --c.a. Teresa Nacli-Napoli wrote: > Just a smart way to change history, they are doing this for years with > no complains. How about the Golan Heights that belongs to Syria and they > show as Israeli land? > They should say OCCUPATION and Israel is not complying with > UN resolution 242 since 1967 . > ????? > > --- On *Sat, 1/23/10, Carlos A. Afonso //* wrote: > > > From: Carlos A. Afonso > Subject: Re: [governance] And yet Google again: Online petition > against GoogleMaps > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Rui Correia" > Date: Saturday, January 23, 2010, 5:55 AM > > Strange... for us here in BR it had always been the Persian Gulf, and > continues to be so. How did this change happen? > > --c.a. > > Rui Correia wrote: > > One thing is for sure: good or bad, Google is getting more than > its fair > > share of publicity! > > > > We, the undersigned, through this letter, protest your irresponsible, > > unscientific actions, and demand an immediate and unconditional > deletion > > of “Arabian Gulf” from Google Earth. > > > > Arbitrarily designating the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf is an > > irresponsible violation of all historical and International standards > > and would undermine the integrity of Google Earth. > > > > 1.197.422 signatures > > > > http://www.petitiononline.com/sos02082/petition.html > > http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?sos02082 > > > > You can read about the naming dispute here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute > > > > Regards, > > > > Rui > > > > -- > > ________________________________________________ > > > > > > Rui Correia > > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > > Angola Liaison Consultant > > 2 Cutten St > > Horison > > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > > South Africa > > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > > _______________ > > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > CGI.br (www.cgi.br) > Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) > ==================================== > new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca > ==================================== > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Sat Jan 23 07:09:23 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:09:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] Racism on the Internet - New book from the Council of Europe Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Publishing Date: 22 January 2010 11:24 Subject: Racism on the Internet To: NEW TITLE / NOUVEAUTÉ *Racism on the Internet* (19/01/2010) Racism was a pressing social problem long before the emergence of the digital age. The advancement of digital communication technologies such as the Internet has, however, added a new dimension to this problem by providing individuals and organisations with modern and powerful means to propagate racism and xenophobia. The use of the Internet as an instrument for the widespread dissemination of racist content is assessed in detail by the author. The problem of racist content on the Internet has naturally prompted vigorous responses from a variety of agents, including governments, supranational and international organisations and from the private sector. This book also provides a detailed critical overview of these regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives. Author(s) : Dr Yaman Akdeniz ISBN : 978-92-871-6634-0 Format : 16 x 24 No. of pages : 173 Price : *29 €/ 58 $* + 10% postage *To place an order directly * http://book.coe.int/sysmodules/RBS_page/admin/redirect.php?id=36&lang=EN&produit_aliasid=2461 Council of Europe Publishing Palais de l'Europe, 67075 Strasbourg Cedex, France E-mail : publishing at coe.int Visit our site : http://book.coe.int Tel. : +33 (0)3 88 41 25 81 Fax : +33 (0)3 88 41 39 10 ------------------------------ If you can't read this mail, please use the following URL : http://book.coe.int/sysmodules/RBS_page/admin/redirect.php?id=36&lang=EN&produit_aliasid=2461 Pour vous désabonner, cliquez sur ce lien : Cliquez ici To unsubscribe, click on the following link : click here -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 23 11:41:31 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:41:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Openess at ApNic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <830771.99178.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> McTim,   I think this is important.  I think openess and transparency and inclusivenss are important. Perhaps I am wrong.  Clearly you are in a better position to judge and explain. So I look forward to learning what I am ignorant of.   Sometimes the best role of governance is to simply open up lines of communication. Obviously education and knowledge are paramount to understanding. During my, lack of, work in Internet Governance I have seen time and time again the divide between socio-polywogs and technotechnicrats. I have seen more fledgling bridges between the two burned than completed.   Could you please provide some links that you think would be helpful for me in learning about how ApNic is inclusive and does bridge this gap.  "How to", criteria and avenues for involvement would be most helpful. I find most good learning is from doing.   I look forward to learning and shedding some light on this subject that you point out my ignorance in.   Your anticipated cooperation is greatly appreciated.   Eric --- On Fri, 1/22/10, McTim wrote: From: McTim Subject: Re: [governance] Less than 10% of IPv4 Addresses Remain To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" Cc: "Adam Peake" Date: Friday, January 22, 2010, 2:53 PM On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: The only error that was made here was the assumption that developed nations were in control and controlling these things.  It is more accurately a closed club of globetrotting elitist carpetbaggers that control these things. If you participated, you would know how wrong you are.     The right to speak may in some way be tolerated.  But there is no way a right for individuals in the civil society to be heard Everyone has the same opportunity and each voice is given the same weight.  Now, if what you say makes sense, then perhaps people will give your voice more consideration.   or have a vote. Voting isn't done, decisions are reached by consensus.   Even on this list, if Ginger is offended you are cut off.  Can you give an example of this?   Of course at ApNic it is not tolerated to be a non-cadre member. You know not of which you speak. -- 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 fm-lists at st-kilda.org Sat Jan 23 12:00:25 2010 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:00:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] Bottom up open to anyone In-Reply-To: <937570.70270.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <937570.70270.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1288CB8C-4475-4B47-90BB-BD25DB50000D@st-kilda.org> On 22 Jan 2010, at 14:09, Eric Dierker wrote: > 1. What does the term bottom up mean? I have never seen a seat > filled by a consumer with no credentials in Internet work. > Define credentials? In the RIPE RIR region participation is the only requirement, if you can convince people with your proposal it will become policy. We have a formal PDP - Policy Development Process, http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/pdp.html . The concluding phase where the process is reviewed by the Working Group chairs as a collective is purely concerned with making sure the rest of the process was followed and consensus was achieved, all it can do is send policy back to the WG to gain consensus. > 2. Really, the lists are not monitored and censored and are open to > anyone? Certainly in the RIPE RIR they are open to all and not censored. Work is done on the mailing list not at meetings so the entry to participation is not dependent on travel budgets. > And Milton is the example of openness and bottom up?? No idea - he doesn't really participate in the RIPE community as far as I know. f ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jan 23 14:24:35 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:24:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Openess at ApNic In-Reply-To: <830771.99178.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <830771.99178.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > McTim, > > Could you please provide some links that you think would be helpful for me > in learning about how ApNic is inclusive and does bridge this gap. > Start here: http://www.apnic.net/community/participate http://www.apnic.net/community/policy http://icons.apnic.net/display/icons/Home http://icons.apnic.net/display/how2/How-To+Guides http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia-Pacific_Network_Information_Centre#Policy_development_process -- 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 tvest at eyeconomics.com Sat Jan 23 14:29:03 2010 From: tvest at eyeconomics.com (tvest at eyeconomics.com) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:29:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] Less than 10% of IPv4 Addresses Remain Unallocated, In-Reply-To: <701af9f71001230151s3d63f705p742fbc0d2c99d196@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f71001202355g28d08e11o97a2379dfc58be6@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71001211648l25deacddne9949950c943fd06@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71001220420t1d3a2d2ai495ee792d03ecf3f@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71001230151s3d63f705p742fbc0d2c99d196@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <619BAE8A-3A75-4FFC-AF6A-22ABED92B310@eyeconomics.com> On Jan 23, 2010, at 4:51 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Yes, I am taking notes on this and see how this works, my appreciation > and recognition to and for everyone's comments in the end. > > In my discussions with APNIC staff during the IGF2009, on my question > of CS engagement I was referred to the membership page with costs. > After being subscribed to APNIC lists for my region for half a decade > and reading through the other announcement lists that I subscribe to, > I fail to find the missing connection apart from commercial > engagements and I know that funds most of the support to the APNIC > organization, operations and structure. The scholarships/fellowships > to APNIC activities/events/trainings are directed towards members and > usually entertains just members because they financially support the > process. As a former co-chair of the APRICOT Fellowship Committee*, I can declare that this is an utterly baseless assertion. First of all, the fellowships have always been oriented toward strengthening intra-regional operational know-how and technical coordination. Granted, this is consistent with APRICOT's institutional mandate -- but then APRICOT is not a membership organization, and does not play any role in the administration of Internet protocol resources. Second, fellowship priorities have long been strongly biased in favor of less wealthy over wealthier, more industrially developed countries, *and also* in favor of smaller, less well-established regional network operators over larger, more well-funded institutions -- i.e., just about the opposite of what you claim. Again this is in keeping with the purposes for which the fellowship program was established. Feel free to see for yourself: http://meetings.apnic.net/29/going/fellowship It is true that the fellowships are almost exclusively awarded to individuals with operational responsibilities in real, working networks -- i.e., the sort of people whose technical know-how and ability to manage network trouble substantially determines whether the Internet does or does not work in their home territories -- but that does not imply that all were, are, or will ever be APNIC members. APNIC membership is not a prerequisite for operating an Internet network. *APRICOT is the annual regional engineering/operations-oriented conference, which has been collocated with every Spring APNIC Meeting since the mid-1990s. APRICOT has provided a fellowship program for at least as long. Beginning in about 2007 the fellowship program came to be jointly administered by APNIC and APRICOT. My own involvement in APRICOT began while I was working in Japan as regional manager for an international network. NOTE WELL: I currently play no role in APNIC or APRICOT, and speak only for myself. > Isn't it odd that these administrative charges on not mentioned in > detail? Misunderstandings arise from lack of key information in these > cases. What I find odd is that someone would undermine their own credibility in an important policy discussion by making strong assertions about empirical facts, apparently without making any attempt to verify them. Indeed, misunderstandings can arise in such circumstances; hopefully this clarification will help to reduce that possibility in this particular case. > Once again, has anyone seen a list at APNIC on non-commercial user > discussion? http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy If you are unsure, feel free to look here for a *subset* of discussion participants: http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/who-are-our-members The most cursory review reveals that there are at least 30 universities among APNIC's membership. No doubt the list includes many more institutions that would qualify as "non-commercial," if this distinction is important enough to you to justify a more thorough analysis. Alternately, you could simply start contributing to sig-policy list itself, since participation is *not* limited to APNIC members, or restricted in any other way. Of course the discussion is focused on substance and merits of particular protocol number resource policies, so having some knowledge of whatever policy you wish to discuss is useful. Alternately, you are always free to submit an original policy proposal of your own. > Please direct me to it as I would like to learn more about > their process of non-commercial engagement that the APNIC staff failed > to share. Perhaps they misunderstood your question. Or perhaps you misunderstood the purpose of APNIC. In any case, I hope that you will find these pointers useful in your future investigation and deliberation on these matters. Tom Vest > Thanking everyone who joined this discussion in advance. > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 7:12 PM, George Sadowsky > wrote: >> Fouad, >> It's worth reading McTim's responses carefully. In particular, there is >> room in RIR space for anyone who wants to make responsible comments to >> participate. The RIRs are not closed organizations; they serve the ISPs of >> the region by administering address allocations for the benefit of their >> members, ISPs, and ultimately the users. They do have administrative costs >> that they must recover. However, those costs, as they are distributed down >> to the tail ISPs, are very minimal compared with almost all other costs >> involved in being a part of the network (sometimes even including tea and >> coffee :-) ). >> One of the most important functions that lists like this can perform, as >> well as meetings such as IGF, is to ensure that participants understand how >> the current system works. An accurate understanding of the current system >> is really important for discussion to lead to useful progress. >> Regards, >> George >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> At 3:51 PM +0300 1/22/10, McTim wrote: >> >> Fouad, >> >> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> Hi, >> That is actually a mis-perception. It costs to join APNIC and receive >> number resources. >> >> I labor under no misconception regarding how the RIRs operate. >> >> I am am active member of several RIR mailing lists. Today for example, I >> have received a dozen or more mail from ARIN, RIPE and AfrINIC lists. >> >> >> >> http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/how-much-does-it-cost >> >> If you visit the APNIC frontpage at http://www.apnic.net, you will see >> under the heading Internet Resources: How Much Does it Cost? and you >> will see the structure they have. All ISPs and service providers in >> the region have to buy their membership and then this trickles down to >> the end-users as well. >> >> Local Internet Registries should operate on a cost recovery basis, some do >> and some inevitably make IP addresses a profit center. >> >> >> >> Secondly there is no system for Civil Society >> and Non-Commercial User engagement >> >> This is where the misconception is entirely yours. Anyone can join the >> policy discussion lists and have an impact on Internet numbering resource >> policy. Currently, I do not represent any ISP or LIR, yet participate in >> developing policies in multiple regions. Really, the system is open to >> anyone, technically minded or otherwise. Milton's experience in the ARIN >> region also prove this, as he has had a not insignificant impact on ARIN >> policy making since he joined the list. >> >> >> >> , more or less, a structure coming >> down from the parent number resource system. >> >> Nope, completely bottom up. Where do you get these false notions from? >> >> >> Actually its sold to APNIC Members that charge quite a fees that in >> most cases is far more than the amount of income for many in our part >> of the world. Have a look at the Membership Charges of APNIC. >> >> IP addresses are NOT sold. You should read more completely: >> >> http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/how-much-does-it-cost >> >> "APNIC does not sell Internet resources such as IP addresses. >> >> Instead, resources holders are granted the right to use these public >> resources. However, APNIC charges administration fees to assist in the >> management of this resource and the provision of services it provides the >> community." >> >> I have tracked their fees for many years, and find their system to be very >> fair. >> >> What you must understand is that for an ISP that wants IP blocks, one does >> not have to join a RIR to get them, they can simply get an assignment or >> sub-allocation from their upstream provider. For larger ISPs, the cost of >> joining and getting an allocation is a tiny fraction of their monthly >> revenue. It's part of the cost of doing business, like serving tea to the >> staff (I know because the last ISP I worked for actually had a larger >> tea/sugar/milk budget than for the AfriNIC fees). >> >> >> >> The perception you shared is what is commonly shared amongst the >> Internet community from the developed world. >> >> This perception is also widely shared in the developing world. >> >> >> Its not an apple pie for >> us, really, we have some really tough problems here. >> >> Believe me I know what those problems are and work on them daily here in >> Africa. The RIRs fees are NOT one of the problems. >> >> Its not how critically we think but what resources we have access to >> without Moolah (money) in between. The system is very vague indeed for >> the people that see it from outside but from the inside, you pay, you >> get. >> >> >> Do you honestly think that adding another layer of bureaucracy would make >> the system cheaper? >> >> >> I rest my case. >> >> I find no merit in your "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 >> > > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > Advisor & Researcher > ICT4D & Internet Governance > Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) > Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > My Blog: Internet's Governance > http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > MAG Interview: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 23 18:30:00 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:30:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: Openess at ApNic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <610484.42497.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Thanks, I am studying and learning much about this and RiP e . --- On Sat, 1/23/10, McTim wrote: From: McTim Subject: Re: Openess at ApNic To: "Eric Dierker" Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Adam Peake" , "Fouad Bajwa" Date: Saturday, January 23, 2010, 7:24 PM On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: McTim,   Could you please provide some links that you think would be helpful for me in learning about how ApNic is inclusive and does bridge this gap.  Start here: http://www.apnic.net/community/participate http://www.apnic.net/community/policy http://icons.apnic.net/display/icons/Home http://icons.apnic.net/display/how2/How-To+Guides http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia-Pacific_Network_Information_Centre#Policy_development_process -- 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Jan 23 19:37:26 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 05:37:26 +0500 Subject: [governance] Less than 10% of IPv4 Addresses Remain Unallocated, In-Reply-To: <619BAE8A-3A75-4FFC-AF6A-22ABED92B310@eyeconomics.com> References: <701af9f71001202355g28d08e11o97a2379dfc58be6@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71001211648l25deacddne9949950c943fd06@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71001220420t1d3a2d2ai495ee792d03ecf3f@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71001230151s3d63f705p742fbc0d2c99d196@mail.gmail.com> <619BAE8A-3A75-4FFC-AF6A-22ABED92B310@eyeconomics.com> Message-ID: <701af9f71001231637o2ebc4216x47da775cec469a02@mail.gmail.com> Hi Tom, I appreciate your comments and directions as I respect everyone's comment and have keenly read them! Most of this discussion was a spin-off from a piece of information I shared coming from the APNIC lists. Though the discussion has been very informative but what are being termed as assertions are still based on years of practical interactions and responses from the Internet community in our region and I would like to pause this discussion for the moment as it is distracting me a bit from the issues I am focused on at the moment though I will continue to read and follow discussions on the various APNIC lists. I did very well understand what APNIC said as during the day we continued discussions and I also introduced more delegations to the APNIC staff so that issue at my end remains affirmative, please do not self assume the accuracy of my discussions and deliberations though I admit it is hard for anyone to stand in my shoes and understand that where I am coming from. I am not currently engaged in hardcore academic activities and there is only one university from Pakistan that is actually a medical sector university so again universities aren't of much of the issue here and in our region universities do not lead multi-sector research and engagement with the industry as it happens in the developed regions. I do have links to the academia at my end as I serve on ICT decision committees/social enterprise development initiatives/technology incubation in various public universities in Pakistan and have taught at some during my 10 year teaching career but that again is a whole separate thing and has nothing to do with APNIC. I have been following the SIG and sorry to say you might not clearly understand non-commercial users or policy matters that they engage in. Also, it doesn't deal with grassroot stakeholder or again the user issues. The majority of APNIC members are the Private and Public Sector organizations and if you follow the universities, you will understand how many are public and private sector so again that argument may not hold validity here. The APNIC SIG does not serve that purpose though it might be a good starting point but I am not going to step into it at this point. Some of my ambiguities continue to be un-answered from the non-commercial, simple user etc stakeholder perspective but that is okay as once again this is not my focus nor any of my colleagues that have responded belong my region and the ones that do haven't responded and also none of the people that practically experience the results of APNIC activities are present here which means the people say from Pakistan or India or Sri Lanka or Nepal etc that may actually be corresponding with APNIC. Thank you to everyone once again that participated in this discussion even though it was a spin-off from just an information sharing message. On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:29 AM, wrote: > > On Jan 23, 2010, at 4:51 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> Yes, I am taking notes on this and see how this works, my appreciation >> and recognition to and for everyone's comments in the end. >> >> In my discussions with APNIC staff during the IGF2009, on my question >> of CS engagement I was referred to the membership page with costs. >> After being subscribed to APNIC lists for my region for half a decade >> and reading through the other announcement lists that I subscribe to, >> I fail to find the missing connection apart from commercial >> engagements and I know that funds most of the support to the APNIC >> organization, operations and structure. The scholarships/fellowships >> to APNIC activities/events/trainings are directed towards members and >> usually entertains just members because they financially support the >> process. > > As a former co-chair of the APRICOT Fellowship Committee*, I can declare that this is an utterly baseless assertion. > > First of all, the fellowships have always been oriented toward strengthening intra-regional operational know-how and technical coordination. Granted, this is consistent with APRICOT's institutional mandate -- but then APRICOT is not a membership organization, and does not play any role in the administration of Internet protocol resources. > > Second, fellowship priorities have long been strongly biased in favor of less wealthy over wealthier, more industrially developed countries, *and also* in favor of smaller, less well-established regional network operators over larger, more well-funded institutions -- i.e., just about the opposite of what you claim. Again this is in keeping with the purposes for which the fellowship program was established. > > Feel free to see for yourself: > > http://meetings.apnic.net/29/going/fellowship > > It is true that the fellowships are almost exclusively awarded to individuals with operational responsibilities in real, working networks -- i.e., the sort of people whose technical know-how and ability to manage network trouble substantially determines whether the Internet does or does not work in their home territories -- but that does not imply that all were, are, or will ever be APNIC members. APNIC membership is not a prerequisite for operating an Internet network. > > *APRICOT is the annual regional engineering/operations-oriented conference, which has been collocated with every Spring APNIC Meeting since the mid-1990s. APRICOT has provided a fellowship program for at least as long. Beginning in about 2007 the fellowship program came to be jointly administered by APNIC and APRICOT. My own involvement in APRICOT began while I was working in Japan as regional manager for an international network. NOTE WELL: I currently play no role in APNIC or APRICOT, and speak only for myself. > > >> Isn't it odd that these administrative charges on not mentioned in >> detail? Misunderstandings arise from lack of key information in these >> cases. > > What I find odd is that someone would undermine their own credibility in an important policy discussion by making strong assertions about empirical facts, apparently without making any attempt to verify them. Indeed, misunderstandings can arise in such circumstances; hopefully this clarification will help to reduce that possibility in this particular case. > >> Once again, has anyone seen a list at APNIC on non-commercial user >> discussion? > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > If you are unsure, feel free to look here for a *subset* of discussion participants: > > http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/who-are-our-members > > The most cursory review reveals that there are at least 30 universities among APNIC's membership. > No doubt the list includes many more institutions that would qualify as "non-commercial," if this distinction is important enough to you to justify a more thorough analysis. Alternately, you could simply start contributing to sig-policy list itself, since participation is *not* limited to APNIC members, or restricted in any other way. > > Of course the discussion is focused on substance and merits of particular protocol number resource policies, so having some knowledge of whatever policy you wish to discuss is useful. Alternately, you are always free to submit an original policy proposal of your own. > >> Please direct me to it as I would like to learn more about >> their process of non-commercial engagement that the APNIC staff failed >> to share. > > Perhaps they misunderstood your question. Or perhaps you misunderstood the purpose of APNIC. > > In any case, I hope that you will find these pointers useful in your future investigation and deliberation on these matters. > > Tom Vest > >> Thanking everyone who joined this discussion in advance. >> >> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 7:12 PM, George Sadowsky >> wrote: >>> Fouad, >>> It's worth reading McTim's responses carefully.  In particular, there is >>> room in RIR space for anyone who wants to make responsible comments to >>> participate.  The RIRs are not closed organizations; they serve the ISPs of >>> the region by administering address allocations for the benefit of their >>> members, ISPs, and ultimately the users.  They do have administrative costs >>> that they must recover.  However, those costs, as they are distributed down >>> to the tail ISPs, are very minimal compared with almost all other costs >>> involved in being a part of the network (sometimes even including tea and >>> coffee  :-)  ). >>> One of the most important functions that lists like this can perform, as >>> well as meetings such as IGF, is to ensure that participants understand how >>> the current system works.  An accurate understanding of the current system >>> is really important for discussion to lead to useful progress. >>> Regards, >>> George >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> At 3:51 PM +0300 1/22/10, McTim wrote: >>> >>> Fouad, >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> That is actually a mis-perception. It costs to join APNIC and receive >>> number resources. >>> >>> I labor under no misconception regarding how the RIRs operate. >>> >>> I am am active member of several RIR mailing lists.  Today for example, I >>> have received a dozen or more mail from ARIN, RIPE and AfrINIC lists. >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/how-much-does-it-cost >>> >>> If you visit the APNIC frontpage at http://www.apnic.net, you will see >>> under the heading Internet Resources: How Much Does it Cost? and you >>> will see the structure they have. All ISPs and service providers in >>> the region have to buy their membership and then this trickles down to >>> the end-users as well. >>> >>> Local Internet Registries should operate on a cost recovery basis, some do >>> and some inevitably make IP addresses a profit center. >>> >>> >>> >>> Secondly there is no system for Civil Society >>> and Non-Commercial User engagement >>> >>> This is where the misconception is entirely yours.  Anyone can join the >>> policy discussion lists and have an impact on Internet numbering resource >>> policy.  Currently, I do not represent any ISP or LIR, yet participate in >>> developing policies in multiple regions.  Really, the system is open to >>> anyone, technically minded or otherwise.  Milton's experience in the ARIN >>> region also prove this, as he has had a not insignificant impact on ARIN >>> policy making since he joined the list. >>> >>> >>> >>> , more or less, a structure coming >>> down from the parent number resource system. >>> >>> Nope, completely bottom up.  Where do you get these false notions from? >>> >>> >>> Actually its sold to APNIC Members that charge quite a fees that in >>> most cases is far more than the amount of income for many in our part >>> of the world. Have a look at the Membership Charges of APNIC. >>> >>> IP addresses are NOT sold.  You should read more completely: >>> >>> http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/how-much-does-it-cost >>> >>> "APNIC does not sell Internet resources such as IP addresses. >>> >>> Instead, resources holders are granted the right to use these public >>> resources. However, APNIC charges administration fees to assist in the >>> management of this resource and the provision of services it provides the >>> community." >>> >>> I have tracked their fees for many years, and find their system to be very >>> fair. >>> >>> What you must understand is that for an ISP that wants IP blocks, one does >>> not have to join a RIR to get them, they can simply get an assignment or >>> sub-allocation from their upstream provider.  For larger ISPs, the cost of >>> joining and getting an allocation is a tiny fraction of their monthly >>> revenue.  It's part of the cost of doing business, like serving tea to the >>> staff  (I know because the last ISP I worked for actually had a larger >>> tea/sugar/milk budget than for the AfriNIC fees). >>> >>> >>> >>> The perception you shared is what is commonly shared amongst the >>> Internet community from the developed world. >>> >>> This perception is also widely shared in the developing world. >>> >>> >>> Its not an apple pie for >>> us, really, we have some really tough problems here. >>> >>> Believe me I know what those problems are and work on them daily here in >>> Africa.  The RIRs fees are NOT one of the problems. >>> >>> Its not how critically we think but what resources we have access to >>> without Moolah (money) in between. The system is very vague indeed for >>> the people that see it from outside but from the inside, you pay, you >>> get. >>> >>> >>> Do you honestly think that adding another layer of bureaucracy would make >>> the system cheaper? >>> >>> >>> I rest my case. >>> >>> I find no merit in your "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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> Advisor & Researcher >> ICT4D & Internet Governance >> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) >> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) >> My Blog: Internet's Governance >> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >> Follow my Tweets: >> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> MAG Interview: >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fm-lists at st-kilda.org Sat Jan 23 20:32:47 2010 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 01:32:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Openess at ApNic In-Reply-To: <610484.42497.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <610484.42497.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5E980509-663B-44C8-A45E-EE2E3B009351@st-kilda.org> On 23 Jan 2010, at 23:30, Eric Dierker wrote: > Thanks, I am studying and learning much about this and RiP e . You should be aware that there is a difference between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the community. RIPE NCC - RIPE Network Coordination Centre, is the executive organisation that implements the policies that are set by the RIPE community. It is a membership organisation, and sets the fees for the implemented policies on a cost recovery basis. It does not set policy. It provides the organisation for the RIPE meetings. Anyone can participate in the RIPE and the policy making process, it is open to all. The decision making process is done via mailing lists, not at face to face meetings, although meetings are used to enable discussion. The meetings are webcast, with scribes to feedback external questions. I would say it is a fine example of a bottom up organisation, but I might be biased as a WG Chair :-) All the other RIRs have a similar split between policy making and NCC/ NIC/operations organisation, however I think that only RIPE has the separate naming convention for the two groups. HTH f ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 23 21:03:40 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:03:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: Openess at ApNic In-Reply-To: <5E980509-663B-44C8-A45E-EE2E3B009351@st-kilda.org> Message-ID: <129956.27192.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Thank you. I find the structure extremely sound and the process well designed.  It could even be mimicked and adapted here and, I believe, make an improvement.  Certainly it is a good example of social/governmental architecture.   Now the hard test: does it actually work and what results?   To this end I am reviewing input and output.  Is or are there any sterling example(s)?   My method is to go to Draft Docs. -- and work backward into discussion.   http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/archive/index.html to http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2009/index-auth.html   I must say like most policy/technical lists the categories help ie auth/sub/chron  and these seem well kept but as usual us authors seldom stick to a well designed subject line ;-( --- On Sun, 1/24/10, Fearghas McKay wrote: From: Fearghas McKay Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Openess at ApNic To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Sunday, January 24, 2010, 1:32 AM On 23 Jan 2010, at 23:30, Eric Dierker wrote: > Thanks, I am studying and learning much about this and RiP e . You should be aware that there is a difference between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the community. RIPE NCC - RIPE Network Coordination Centre, is the executive organisation that implements the policies that are set by the RIPE community. It is a membership organisation, and sets the fees for the implemented policies on a cost recovery basis. It does not set policy. It provides the organisation for the RIPE meetings. Anyone can participate in the RIPE and the policy making process, it is open to all. The decision making process is done via mailing lists, not at face to face meetings, although meetings are used to enable discussion. The meetings are webcast, with scribes to feedback external questions. I would say it is a fine example of a bottom up organisation, but I might be biased as a WG Chair :-) All the other RIRs have a similar split between policy making and NCC/NIC/operations organisation, however I think that only RIPE has the separate naming convention for the two groups. HTH     f ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 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 mueller at syr.edu Sun Jan 24 11:29:35 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:29:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] RE: China Global Times editorial on Google issue In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB37CB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6C29@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Ian, I don't think Chinese state propaganda rationalizing its censorship is "worth reading," and it is "interesting" only in the sense that a forensic analysis of a crime can be "interesting." Know thy enemy, sure. But that wasn't your perspective. By placing western media and its advocacy of open markets and opposition to censorship in the same category as a one-party political monopoly's use of harsh repression, including jailings and murder, to retain its power and suppress social diversity, I think you commit an intellectual and political error of the highest order. Either that or you are completely naive, as people who live in sheltered countries with guaranteed democratic rights often tend to be. Sure, large corporations can become dominant and commit abuses. In the grand scheme of things market dominance of a Google pales in comparison to the type of systematic repression of a one party state. Don't let yourself be diverted from that by siren songs about how these dictators are saving us all from the depredations of capitalism. Oldest trick in the authoritarian book. The tiresome, 80s-vintage leftist argument that the entire western world was brainwashed by private commercial media during the UNESCO-NWICO debates leaves me shaking my head. Here the similarities between WSIS and NWICO come to the fore. Of course private media has an economic interest in free expression and free trade in info services. But that economic interest also can and often does correspond with a general public interest in competition, freedom and diversity in information services markets. The journalists of that time (the late 70s early 80s) were emphatically devoted to traditional liberal principles of free expression, and what they heard coming from the third world governments at that time was perceived, correctly, as a threat to those values. I have read everything there is to read about NWICO including the MacBride Report. The report itself was a diplomatically worded statement carefully designed to try and find a consensus point on an acrimonious issue. If you don't think NWICO was about sovereignty vs. globalization of information flows perhaps you should do some more reading, including publications written by MacBride report advocates themselves and the UNESCO intellectuals involved. You might check into Hamelink (1979) who defined a new international information order as: “an international exchange of information in which states, which develop their cultural systems in an autonomous way and with complete sovereign control of resources, fully and effectively participate as independent members of the international community.” In this formulation the relevant unit of analysis, and holder of communication rights, are states. you might look Schiller's work aptly titled sovereignty and international communication, or the deliberations and pronouncements of the states at the time. As I explain in this paper, http://dcc.syr.edu/ford/mim/CRIS-case-9-12-05.pdf which links the NWICO history to WSIS, the basic fallacy here is the conflation of individual rights with collective rights (typically those usurped or claimed by states). This confusion allows states to repress expression and squash diversity in the name of a larger "community" which is inevitably equated with a centralized state and not allowed to speak for itself or reach its own conclusions. ________________________________________ From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 5:59 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] RE: China Global Times editorial on Google issue Hi Milton, I only said it was interesting and worth reading. But you have raised the ghost of the new world information order (circa 1983) so let me say that, to my reading and involvement, NWICO was about imbalanced commercial domination of radio and television across the world, not about dictators concepts of sovereignty. Re-read Macbride Report itself (Many Voices One World), not the US commercial media coverage and interpretations of the time, and I think you will find that it is just possible, then and now, for dominant commercial media to influence peoples thinking and distort the truth. (Or state dominated media for that matter). Very surprised you were taken by the old trick of believing NWICO was about dictatorships and sovereignty. But then, you do live in a country whose mass information flows at the time, driven by commercial radio and tv licencees, were more concerned with protection of their own interests than in propagation of either truth or balanced debate. Which of course is why the free flow of information on the Internet is important. That offers the promise of breaking down media ownership distortions, particularly with a younger generation who don't watch tv or listen to radio. So I think we agree that free flow of information on the internet is vitally important - where we might have different emphases is when we start to examine whether dominant commercial interests (or governmental for that matter) start to distort this flow and what governance and policy mechanisms might be suitable on a global level to make sure the Internet stays open. Here, I am not happy with unilateral government actions such as those of China. But nor am I happy with the concept of an unregulated commercial media anarchy with no checks and balances. Ian Peter > From: Milton L Mueller > Reply-To: , Milton L Mueller > Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:01:17 -0500 > To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" , Ian Peter > > Subject: [governance] RE: China Global Times editionial on Google issue > > > Ian, > Very surprised you were taken in by this old trick. Unbelievable. > This is a reproduction of the old "New world information order" debates in > which dictators sought refuge in concepts of "sovereignty" over communication > and "unbalanced flows" of information in order to shield themselves and their > regimes from criticism and to control dialogue about themselves. > > OK, when these were small African nations (which nevertheless often had really > bad dictators, like Mobutu or Amin) maybe this idea of unbalanced information > generation capabilities was a little bit plausible. But when we are talking > about China, where the language differs and the size of the market is now > larger than any country in the world except the US, this kind of complaint is > just the most obvious state-sponsored rationalizations for censorship and a > pathetic attempt to use nationalism and the fear of a foreign enemy to paper > over repression. > > The idea that China (or virtually any other country that engages in systematic > censorship) is doing it to prortect themselves from domineering foreigners is > ridiculous. It is immediately refuted by the fact that the most important > forms of censorship and surveillance are directed at internal sources of > dissent. I guess you haven't been in China for a while, but the fifty-cent > army is not concerned with the pronouncements of Hilary Clinton in English - > they monitor and respond to Chinese people speaking to themselves. The Falun > Gong is likewise not exactly a foreign force in China, nor are the Tibetans. > > The claim that 81% of Chinese are supporting the Chinese government against > Google is another one of these manufactured polls produiced by whom? The > Chinese Ministry of Culture and Propaganda. > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 4:16 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] China Global Times editionial on Google issue >> >> This is interesting and worth reading. Similar to arguments >> about free trade >> and protectionism. >> >> The real stake in "free flow of information" >> >> Source: Global Times [04:55 January 22 2010]Comments >> With her seemingly impassioned speech Thursday, US Secretary of State >> Hillary Clinton may be said to have raised the stakes in >> Washington's clash >> with Beijing over Internet freedom. >> >> "We stand for a single Internet where all of humanity has >> equal access to >> knowledge and ideas." Clinton's words may sound perfectly >> right to some in >> the West, but would be regarded as a new threat by people in >> other parts of >> the world. >> >> The US campaign for uncensored and free flow of information on an >> unrestricted Internet is a disguised attempt to impose its >> values on other >> cultures in the name of democracy. >> >> The hard fact that Clinton has failed to highlight in her >> speech is that >> bulk of the information flowing from the US and other Western >> countries is >> loaded with aggressive rhetoric against those countries that >> do not follow >> their lead. >> >> In contrast, in the global information order, countries that are >> disadvantaged could not produce the massive flow of >> information required, >> and could never rival the Western countries in terms of >> information control >> and dissemination. >> >> Keeping that in mind, it must be realized that when it comes >> to information >> content, quantity, direction and flow, there is absolutely no >> equality and >> fairness. >> >> The online freedom of unrestricted access is, thus, only >> one-way traffic, >> contrary to the spirit of democracy and calculated to >> strengthen a monopoly. >> >> Countries disadvantaged by the unequal and undemocratic >> information flow >> have to protect their national interest, and take steps >> toward this. This is >> essential for their political stability as well as normal conduct of >> economic and social life. >> >> These facts about the difficulties of developing nations, >> though understood >> by politicians like Clinton, are not communicated to the >> people of Western >> countries. Instead, those politicians publicize and pursue >> their claims >> purely from a Western standpoint. >> >> This practice is morally unworthy and has been resisted by >> intellectuals in >> developing countries. >> >> Take Google's threat to pull out of China for example. It has stirred >> widespread debate among the public in China. The recent poll >> conducted by >> huanqiu.com shows a growing number of people voicing opposition to an >> unregulated or uncensored Google in China. As many as 81 >> percent of those >> polled are opposed to Chinese government accepting Google's demands. >> >> It is not because the people of China do not want free flow >> of information >> or unlimited access to Internet, as in the West. It is just >> because they >> recognize the situation that their country is forced to face. >> >> Unlike advanced Western countries, Chinese society is still >> vulnerable to >> the effect of multifarious information flowing in, especially >> when it is for >> creating disorder. >> >> Western countries have long indoctrinated non-Western nations >> on the issue >> of freedom of speech. It is an aggressive political and >> diplomatic strategy, >> rather than a desire for moral values, that has led them to do so. >> >> The free flow of information is an universal value treasured >> in all nations, >> including China, but the US government's ideological imposition is >> unacceptable and, for that reason, will not be allowed to succeed. >> >> China's real stake in the "free flow of information" is evident in its >> refusal to be victimized by information imperialism. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tvest at eyeconomics.com Sun Jan 24 12:51:07 2010 From: tvest at eyeconomics.com (tvest at eyeconomics.com) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:51:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] Less than 10% of IPv4 Addresses Remain Unallocated, In-Reply-To: <701af9f71001231637o2ebc4216x47da775cec469a02@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f71001202355g28d08e11o97a2379dfc58be6@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71001211648l25deacddne9949950c943fd06@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71001220420t1d3a2d2ai495ee792d03ecf3f@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71001230151s3d63f705p742fbc0d2c99d196@mail.gmail.com> <619BAE8A-3A75-4FFC-AF6A-22ABED92B310@eyeconomics.com> <701af9f71001231637o2ebc4216x47da775cec469a02@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <19BE1489-C9C0-4BB4-9532-B3AC401E9BA4@eyeconomics.com> Dear Mr. Bajwa, Thanks for your reactions. I have replied to a few points in line below. Barring very unlikely developments, this will be my last potentially distracting word on this topic in this forum. Regards, Tom Vest On Jan 23, 2010, at 7:37 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Hi Tom, > > I appreciate your comments and directions as I respect everyone's > comment and have keenly read them! > > Most of this discussion was a spin-off from a piece of information I > shared coming from the APNIC lists. Though the discussion has been > very informative but what are being termed as assertions are still > based on years of practical interactions and responses from the > Internet community in our region and I would like to pause this > discussion for the moment as it is distracting me a bit from the > issues I am focused on at the moment though I will continue to read > and follow discussions on the various APNIC lists. > > I did very well understand what APNIC said as during the day we > continued discussions and I also introduced more delegations to the > APNIC staff so that issue at my end remains affirmative, please do not > self assume the accuracy of my discussions and deliberations though I > admit it is hard for anyone to stand in my shoes and understand that > where I am coming from. > > I am not currently engaged in hardcore academic activities and there > is only one university from Pakistan that is actually a medical sector > university so again universities aren't of much of the issue here and > in our region universities do not lead multi-sector research and > engagement with the industry as it happens in the developed regions. I > do have links to the academia at my end as I serve on ICT decision > committees/social enterprise development initiatives/technology > incubation in various public universities in Pakistan and have taught > at some during my 10 year teaching career but that again is a whole > separate thing and has nothing to do with APNIC. There are definitely some elements within this chain of associations that at this moment are, actively or potentially, *not* separate -- i.e., that are directly relevant to the sphere of activities that APNIC touches. [Note that what follows is in no way intended to be be an exhaustive list of real or potential associations between APNIC and Pakistan, or Pakistani institutions, or you personally; it's based solely on the factors that you mention in your comments above] Pakistan is home to several universities, at least some of which operate IP networks. The people involved in IP networking in those universities are, by definition, active or passive members of the community of interest that defines APNIC policies. In many different kinds of institutions around the world, network design choices are made through variety of institutional processes. In many cases they involve a variety of different kinds of participants -- budgetary authorities, non-technical administrators, end user representatives, external consultants, oversight committees, etc., etc. It sounds like the committee(s) that you you serve might be just the kind of institutions that might, in some but not all circumstances, serve in one of these indirect participatory roles. That said, whether or not that kind of chain of relevant associations holds between the particular role(s) that you play within the those institutions, and also whether those institutions do or do not have that kind of relationship to university networking activities (or the activities of any other network-operating institution) are all contingent facts determined by your own local circumstances. The bottom line is that many people whose circumstances would seem to be, broadly speaking, very much like your own, have all sorts of direct and indirect participatory roles in the APNIC policy making process. But even that is unnecessary, as there is no litmus test for "representative status." The APNIC process imposes no additional or arbitrary barriers on your personal involvement in the formulation and development of protocol number resource policies. Of course, neither does the APNIC process guarantee that you or any other individual will command any greater voice in the regional policy development process than is enjoyed by any other individual participant. Nor does APNIC have any say in determining whether any other work that you do is or is not deemed to be relevant to decision making about IP networks within your home territory or elsewhere. Nor does APNIC have role whatsoever in any other sphere of activities unrelated to the administration of protocol number resources, in Pakistan, Asia, or anywhere else. In effect, just as there is no "representative status" requirement for participation, neither does participation confer any special status or authority upon those who do participate. Structurally, every participant in the APNIC process is a "grassroots" participant. Functionally, participation is its own (and only) reward. We are communicating by email, and we seem to be understanding each other (here I'm merely assuming that I'm a more-or-less "typical" participant), so you have clearly demonstrated that you possess all of the prerequisites required to participate in the APNIC policy deliberation process. Nothing is standing in your way! > I have been following the SIG and sorry to say you might not clearly > understand non-commercial users or policy matters that they engage in. Like you, I have also been following, and not infrequently actively participated in, explicitly self-identified non-commercial governance discussions for over a decade now. I believe that I am reasonably well informed about the policy matters discussed in such fora. My point is not that those matters are not important; however they only rarely encompass questions about the administration of protocol number resources -- which is APNIC's *sole* mandate. If your goal is to engage that particular subject, then once again there would seem to be no impediment to your doing do, either here, in the APNIC policy discussion list, or in innumerable other places. However, if your complaint is that APNIC is insufficiently attentive to the myriad other policy issues that are raised in non-commercial user discussions, then the problem is not that you are being excluded from or marginalized in the APNIC debate(s); the problem is that you are seeking to change the subject of those debates -- not only change them, but change them to focus on matters that are completely outside of the scope of APNIC's ambit. Under current circumstances (i.e., in the absence of a clear community-wide consensus in favor of such an shift), that is not going to happen, nor should it. > Also, it doesn't deal with grassroot stakeholder or again the user > issues. The majority of APNIC members are the Private and Public > Sector organizations and if you follow the universities, you will > understand how many are public and private sector so again that > argument may not hold validity here. > The APNIC SIG does not serve that > purpose though it might be a good starting point but I am not going to > step into it at this point. > > Some of my ambiguities continue to be un-answered from the > non-commercial, simple user etc stakeholder perspective but that is > okay as once again this is not my focus nor any of my colleagues that > have responded belong my region and the ones that do haven't responded > and also none of the people that practically experience the results of > APNIC activities are present here which means the people say from > Pakistan or India or Sri Lanka or Nepal etc that may actually be > corresponding with APNIC. The concerns you've expressed have given me an idea. Like most Internet-related conferences, every year APRICOT's conference-specific website includes a list of individual registrants. Some of these can be found online long after the conference ends, e.g., https://events.apricot.net/cgi-bin/reglist.pl?event_id=9 I believe that APNIC does something similar, but would have to investigate further. My thought is that individuals with concerns like those that you've expressed might find it useful to investigate those lists, e.g., to identify local contacts who might be able to provide additional information and helpful suggestions to other aspiring local participants in the regional policy development processes. Although those conference attendees would be under no external obligation to cooperate, I believe that the same might not be true of fellowship recipients, who are also generally identifiable long after the terms of their fellowship. I will inquire with the current members of the APRICOT Management Committee about the possibility of publishing this information in a more structured, systematic way, to facilitate such inquiries. Regards, Tom Vest > Thank you to everyone once again that participated in this discussion > even though it was a spin-off from just an information sharing > message. > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:29 AM, wrote: >> >> On Jan 23, 2010, at 4:51 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >>> Yes, I am taking notes on this and see how this works, my appreciation >>> and recognition to and for everyone's comments in the end. >>> >>> In my discussions with APNIC staff during the IGF2009, on my question >>> of CS engagement I was referred to the membership page with costs. >>> After being subscribed to APNIC lists for my region for half a decade >>> and reading through the other announcement lists that I subscribe to, >>> I fail to find the missing connection apart from commercial >>> engagements and I know that funds most of the support to the APNIC >>> organization, operations and structure. The scholarships/fellowships >>> to APNIC activities/events/trainings are directed towards members and >>> usually entertains just members because they financially support the >>> process. >> >> As a former co-chair of the APRICOT Fellowship Committee*, I can declare that this is an utterly baseless assertion. >> >> First of all, the fellowships have always been oriented toward strengthening intra-regional operational know-how and technical coordination. Granted, this is consistent with APRICOT's institutional mandate -- but then APRICOT is not a membership organization, and does not play any role in the administration of Internet protocol resources. >> >> Second, fellowship priorities have long been strongly biased in favor of less wealthy over wealthier, more industrially developed countries, *and also* in favor of smaller, less well-established regional network operators over larger, more well-funded institutions -- i.e., just about the opposite of what you claim. Again this is in keeping with the purposes for which the fellowship program was established. >> >> Feel free to see for yourself: >> >> http://meetings.apnic.net/29/going/fellowship >> >> It is true that the fellowships are almost exclusively awarded to individuals with operational responsibilities in real, working networks -- i.e., the sort of people whose technical know-how and ability to manage network trouble substantially determines whether the Internet does or does not work in their home territories -- but that does not imply that all were, are, or will ever be APNIC members. APNIC membership is not a prerequisite for operating an Internet network. >> >> *APRICOT is the annual regional engineering/operations-oriented conference, which has been collocated with every Spring APNIC Meeting since the mid-1990s. APRICOT has provided a fellowship program for at least as long. Beginning in about 2007 the fellowship program came to be jointly administered by APNIC and APRICOT. My own involvement in APRICOT began while I was working in Japan as regional manager for an international network. NOTE WELL: I currently play no role in APNIC or APRICOT, and speak only for myself. >> >> >>> Isn't it odd that these administrative charges on not mentioned in >>> detail? Misunderstandings arise from lack of key information in these >>> cases. >> >> What I find odd is that someone would undermine their own credibility in an important policy discussion by making strong assertions about empirical facts, apparently without making any attempt to verify them. Indeed, misunderstandings can arise in such circumstances; hopefully this clarification will help to reduce that possibility in this particular case. >> >>> Once again, has anyone seen a list at APNIC on non-commercial user >>> discussion? >> >> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> >> If you are unsure, feel free to look here for a *subset* of discussion participants: >> >> http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/who-are-our-members >> >> The most cursory review reveals that there are at least 30 universities among APNIC's membership. >> No doubt the list includes many more institutions that would qualify as "non-commercial," if this distinction is important enough to you to justify a more thorough analysis. Alternately, you could simply start contributing to sig-policy list itself, since participation is *not* limited to APNIC members, or restricted in any other way. >> >> Of course the discussion is focused on substance and merits of particular protocol number resource policies, so having some knowledge of whatever policy you wish to discuss is useful. Alternately, you are always free to submit an original policy proposal of your own. >> >>> Please direct me to it as I would like to learn more about >>> their process of non-commercial engagement that the APNIC staff failed >>> to share. >> >> Perhaps they misunderstood your question. Or perhaps you misunderstood the purpose of APNIC. >> >> In any case, I hope that you will find these pointers useful in your future investigation and deliberation on these matters. >> >> Tom Vest >> >>> Thanking everyone who joined this discussion in advance. >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 7:12 PM, George Sadowsky >>> wrote: >>>> Fouad, >>>> It's worth reading McTim's responses carefully. In particular, there is >>>> room in RIR space for anyone who wants to make responsible comments to >>>> participate. The RIRs are not closed organizations; they serve the ISPs of >>>> the region by administering address allocations for the benefit of their >>>> members, ISPs, and ultimately the users. They do have administrative costs >>>> that they must recover. However, those costs, as they are distributed down >>>> to the tail ISPs, are very minimal compared with almost all other costs >>>> involved in being a part of the network (sometimes even including tea and >>>> coffee :-) ). >>>> One of the most important functions that lists like this can perform, as >>>> well as meetings such as IGF, is to ensure that participants understand how >>>> the current system works. An accurate understanding of the current system >>>> is really important for discussion to lead to useful progress. >>>> Regards, >>>> George >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> >>>> At 3:51 PM +0300 1/22/10, McTim wrote: >>>> >>>> Fouad, >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> That is actually a mis-perception. It costs to join APNIC and receive >>>> number resources. >>>> >>>> I labor under no misconception regarding how the RIRs operate. >>>> >>>> I am am active member of several RIR mailing lists. Today for example, I >>>> have received a dozen or more mail from ARIN, RIPE and AfrINIC lists. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/how-much-does-it-cost >>>> >>>> If you visit the APNIC frontpage at http://www.apnic.net, you will see >>>> under the heading Internet Resources: How Much Does it Cost? and you >>>> will see the structure they have. All ISPs and service providers in >>>> the region have to buy their membership and then this trickles down to >>>> the end-users as well. >>>> >>>> Local Internet Registries should operate on a cost recovery basis, some do >>>> and some inevitably make IP addresses a profit center. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Secondly there is no system for Civil Society >>>> and Non-Commercial User engagement >>>> >>>> This is where the misconception is entirely yours. Anyone can join the >>>> policy discussion lists and have an impact on Internet numbering resource >>>> policy. Currently, I do not represent any ISP or LIR, yet participate in >>>> developing policies in multiple regions. Really, the system is open to >>>> anyone, technically minded or otherwise. Milton's experience in the ARIN >>>> region also prove this, as he has had a not insignificant impact on ARIN >>>> policy making since he joined the list. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> , more or less, a structure coming >>>> down from the parent number resource system. >>>> >>>> Nope, completely bottom up. Where do you get these false notions from? >>>> >>>> >>>> Actually its sold to APNIC Members that charge quite a fees that in >>>> most cases is far more than the amount of income for many in our part >>>> of the world. Have a look at the Membership Charges of APNIC. >>>> >>>> IP addresses are NOT sold. You should read more completely: >>>> >>>> http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/how-much-does-it-cost >>>> >>>> "APNIC does not sell Internet resources such as IP addresses. >>>> >>>> Instead, resources holders are granted the right to use these public >>>> resources. However, APNIC charges administration fees to assist in the >>>> management of this resource and the provision of services it provides the >>>> community." >>>> >>>> I have tracked their fees for many years, and find their system to be very >>>> fair. >>>> >>>> What you must understand is that for an ISP that wants IP blocks, one does >>>> not have to join a RIR to get them, they can simply get an assignment or >>>> sub-allocation from their upstream provider. For larger ISPs, the cost of >>>> joining and getting an allocation is a tiny fraction of their monthly >>>> revenue. It's part of the cost of doing business, like serving tea to the >>>> staff (I know because the last ISP I worked for actually had a larger >>>> tea/sugar/milk budget than for the AfriNIC fees). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The perception you shared is what is commonly shared amongst the >>>> Internet community from the developed world. >>>> >>>> This perception is also widely shared in the developing world. >>>> >>>> >>>> Its not an apple pie for >>>> us, really, we have some really tough problems here. >>>> >>>> Believe me I know what those problems are and work on them daily here in >>>> Africa. The RIRs fees are NOT one of the problems. >>>> >>>> Its not how critically we think but what resources we have access to >>>> without Moolah (money) in between. The system is very vague indeed for >>>> the people that see it from outside but from the inside, you pay, you >>>> get. >>>> >>>> >>>> Do you honestly think that adding another layer of bureaucracy would make >>>> the system cheaper? >>>> >>>> >>>> I rest my case. >>>> >>>> I find no merit in your "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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards. >>> -------------------------- >>> Fouad Bajwa >>> Advisor & Researcher >>> ICT4D & Internet Governance >>> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) >>> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) >>> My Blog: Internet's Governance >>> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >>> Follow my Tweets: >>> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >>> MAG Interview: >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > Advisor & Researcher > ICT4D & Internet Governance > Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) > Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > My Blog: Internet's Governance > http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > MAG Interview: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Sun Jan 24 21:28:30 2010 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:28:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] Planning New York City's dotNeighborhoods - January 26 Message-ID: <20100124192829.3256046495ccff5cef1c856a37184d19.bf36805bc1.wbe@email.secureserver.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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 24 22:23:01 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:53:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Planning New York City's dotNeighborhoods - January In-Reply-To: <20100124192829.3256046495ccff5cef1c856a37184d19.bf36805bc1.wbe@email.secureserver.net> References: <20100124192829.3256046495ccff5cef1c856a37184d19.bf36805bc1.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <4B5D0E95.4040905@itforchange.net> Tom, Congratulations for achieving this. .Br is one good example of public interest governance of country's CIRs (they recently issued network neutrality principles) and your effort an excellent one to deal with CIRs in public interest at the crucial, and most difficult, community level. Building alternative public interest frameworks of governance in this area which is overwhelmingly dominated by commercially motivated private governance regimes is an important though, in present adverse conditions, admittedly a very difficult job. Parminder Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > What: Planning New York City's dotNeighborhoods > > When: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 6:30 PM > > Where: Neighborhood Preservation Center, 232 E 11th Street (near > Second Avenue) > > ----------- > We've all become familiar with Top Level Domains like .com, .org, > .edu, and .gov. New York City will soon have its own, the .nyc TLD. > > Tuesday's meeting will focus on a special part of the .nyc Top Level > Domain, the dotNeighborhood name-set. With .nyc's activation (perhaps > as early as next year) 300+ domain names like GreenwichVillage.nyc, > BayRidge.nyc, JacksonHeights.nyc, Harlem.nyc, Astoria.nyc, > Chelsea.nyc, and Melrose.nyc will become available to serve their > neighborhoods. If thoughtfully developed, these dotNeighborhoods will > be places where neighbors can connect with one another to address > problems and explore opportunities. > > This is our third dotNeighborhoods meeting and our focus will be > on governance and accountability: How do we assure that Corona.nyc > serves the needs of Corona residents and not the beer company? > See our dotNeighborhoods wiki pages > > for background. > > We'll also hear from the Hunter College Graduate School of Urban > Affairs Workshop which just completed a project entitled: *A Case > Study - Neighborhoods in a Digital Era*. The researches will describe > their process and findings. You can read the report's Executive > Summary here > . > > Connecting.nyc Inc. advocates for the .nyc TLD's development as a > public interest resource and sees these neighborhood names as perhaps > the most significant name-set. For more on this and the > other name-sets, see our Domain Name Allocation Plan > . > > RSVP to info at connectingnyc.org . > > Best, > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > ----------------------------- > > Thomas Lowenhaupt, Founder & Chair > Connecting.nyc Inc. > tom at connectingnyc.org > www.connectingnyc.org > 718 639 4222 > Wiki Blog > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From german at apnic.net Sun Jan 24 23:29:09 2010 From: german at apnic.net (German Valdez) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:29:09 +1000 Subject: [governance] Re: Openess at ApNic In-Reply-To: References: <830771.99178.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi I think McTim shared the right links about APNIC’s work related to openness. Among all the information you find in these links, I’d like to highlight, the APNIC Policy Development Process in particular, which is open, transparent, and bottom-up for a very good reason. We truly believe that a wider community consultation delivers a better result for the community. APNIC takes great care to encourage broad participation from all members of the community, not just APNIC Members. The bulk of the policy process is conducted online using email lists open to any interested person. Each year, two face-to-face policy discussions take place in different locations throughout the region. For each of these, remote participants can follow proceedings with video and transcription webcasting and directly be part of policy discussions via online chat rooms. All this and more is documented, recorded and freely available on the APNIC website. All community discussions and decisions are available to any member of the public. APNIC maintains archives of all the Executive Council Minutes, Annual Reports, the Policy Development Process outcomes, and much, much more. Additionally to the information published in our website and wikipedia, APNIC has been an active participant in Internet Governance activities, including WSIS and the IGF, advocating for an open, transparent and bottom up Internet. We are always willing to consider suggestions about how we can improve and increase participation, so if you have any ideas, please don’t hesitate to contact me German Valdez Communications Area Manager APNIC On 24/01/2010, at 5:24 AM, McTim wrote: > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > McTim, > > Could you please provide some links that you think would be helpful for me in learning about how ApNic is inclusive and does bridge this gap. > > > Start here: > > http://www.apnic.net/community/participate > > http://www.apnic.net/community/policy > > http://icons.apnic.net/display/icons/Home > > http://icons.apnic.net/display/how2/How-To+Guides > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia-Pacific_Network_Information_Centre#Policy_development_process > > -- > 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Jan 25 04:02:23 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:02:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: China Global Times editorial on Google issue In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6C29@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB37CB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6C29@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B5D5E1F.6030004@wzb.eu> Regarding "collective rights (typically those usurped or claimed by states", see Schneier's interesting take on the Google issue: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/23/schneier.google.hacking/index.html jeanette Milton L Mueller wrote: > Ian, > I don't think Chinese state propaganda rationalizing its censorship is "worth reading," and it is "interesting" only in the sense that a forensic analysis of a crime can be "interesting." Know thy enemy, sure. But that wasn't your perspective. By placing western media and its advocacy of open markets and opposition to censorship in the same category as a one-party political monopoly's use of harsh repression, including jailings and murder, to retain its power and suppress social diversity, I think you commit an intellectual and political error of the highest order. Either that or you are completely naive, as people who live in sheltered countries with guaranteed democratic rights often tend to be. Sure, large corporations can become dominant and commit abuses. In the grand scheme of things market dominance of a Google pales in comparison to the type of systematic repression of a one party state. Don't let yourself be diverted from that by siren songs about how these dicta tors are saving us all from the depredations of capitalism. Oldest trick in the authoritarian book. > The tiresome, 80s-vintage leftist argument that the entire western world was brainwashed by private commercial media during the UNESCO-NWICO debates leaves me shaking my head. Here the similarities between WSIS and NWICO come to the fore. Of course private media has an economic interest in free expression and free trade in info services. But that economic interest also can and often does correspond with a general public interest in competition, freedom and diversity in information services markets. The journalists of that time (the late 70s early 80s) were emphatically devoted to traditional liberal principles of free expression, and what they heard coming from the third world governments at that time was perceived, correctly, as a threat to those values. > I have read everything there is to read about NWICO including the MacBride Report. The report itself was a diplomatically worded statement carefully designed to try and find a consensus point on an acrimonious issue. If you don't think NWICO was about sovereignty vs. globalization of information flows perhaps you should do some more reading, including publications written by MacBride report advocates themselves and the UNESCO intellectuals involved. You might check into Hamelink (1979) who defined a new international information order as: “an international exchange of information in which states, which develop their cultural systems in an > autonomous way and with complete sovereign control of resources, fully and effectively participate as independent members of the international community.” In this formulation the relevant unit of analysis, and holder of communication rights, are states. you might look Schiller's work aptly titled sovereignty and international communication, or the deliberations and pronouncements of the states at the time. > As I explain in this paper, http://dcc.syr.edu/ford/mim/CRIS-case-9-12-05.pdf which links the NWICO history to WSIS, the basic fallacy here is the conflation of individual rights with collective rights (typically those usurped or claimed by states). This confusion allows states to repress expression and squash diversity in the name of a larger "community" which is inevitably equated with a centralized state and not allowed to speak for itself or reach its own conclusions. > > ________________________________________ > From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 5:59 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: China Global Times editorial on Google issue > > Hi Milton, > > I only said it was interesting and worth reading. > > But you have raised the ghost of the new world information order (circa > 1983) so let me say that, to my reading and involvement, NWICO was about > imbalanced commercial domination of radio and television across the world, > not about dictators concepts of sovereignty. Re-read Macbride Report itself > (Many Voices One World), not the US commercial media coverage and > interpretations of the time, and I think you will find that it is just > possible, then and now, for dominant commercial media to influence peoples > thinking and distort the truth. (Or state dominated media for that matter). > > Very surprised you were taken by the old trick of believing NWICO was about > dictatorships and sovereignty. But then, you do live in a country whose mass > information flows at the time, driven by commercial radio and tv licencees, > were more concerned with protection of their own interests than in > propagation of either truth or balanced debate. > > Which of course is why the free flow of information on the Internet is > important. That offers the promise of breaking down media ownership > distortions, particularly with a younger generation who don't watch tv or > listen to radio. So I think we agree that free flow of information on the > internet is vitally important - where we might have different emphases is > when we start to examine whether dominant commercial interests (or > governmental for that matter) start to distort this flow and what governance > and policy mechanisms might be suitable on a global level to make sure the > Internet stays open. > > Here, I am not happy with unilateral government actions such as those of > China. But nor am I happy with the concept of an unregulated commercial > media anarchy with no checks and balances. > > Ian Peter > > > > >> From: Milton L Mueller >> Reply-To: , Milton L Mueller >> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:01:17 -0500 >> To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" , Ian Peter >> >> Subject: [governance] RE: China Global Times editionial on Google issue >> >> >> Ian, >> Very surprised you were taken in by this old trick. Unbelievable. >> This is a reproduction of the old "New world information order" debates in >> which dictators sought refuge in concepts of "sovereignty" over communication >> and "unbalanced flows" of information in order to shield themselves and their >> regimes from criticism and to control dialogue about themselves. >> >> OK, when these were small African nations (which nevertheless often had really >> bad dictators, like Mobutu or Amin) maybe this idea of unbalanced information >> generation capabilities was a little bit plausible. But when we are talking >> about China, where the language differs and the size of the market is now >> larger than any country in the world except the US, this kind of complaint is >> just the most obvious state-sponsored rationalizations for censorship and a >> pathetic attempt to use nationalism and the fear of a foreign enemy to paper >> over repression. >> >> The idea that China (or virtually any other country that engages in systematic >> censorship) is doing it to prortect themselves from domineering foreigners is >> ridiculous. It is immediately refuted by the fact that the most important >> forms of censorship and surveillance are directed at internal sources of >> dissent. I guess you haven't been in China for a while, but the fifty-cent >> army is not concerned with the pronouncements of Hilary Clinton in English - >> they monitor and respond to Chinese people speaking to themselves. The Falun >> Gong is likewise not exactly a foreign force in China, nor are the Tibetans. >> >> The claim that 81% of Chinese are supporting the Chinese government against >> Google is another one of these manufactured polls produiced by whom? The >> Chinese Ministry of Culture and Propaganda. >> >> Milton Mueller >> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology >> ------------------------------ >> Internet Governance Project: >> http://internetgovernance.org >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 4:16 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] China Global Times editionial on Google issue >>> >>> This is interesting and worth reading. Similar to arguments >>> about free trade >>> and protectionism. >>> >>> The real stake in "free flow of information" >>> >>> Source: Global Times [04:55 January 22 2010]Comments >>> With her seemingly impassioned speech Thursday, US Secretary of State >>> Hillary Clinton may be said to have raised the stakes in >>> Washington's clash >>> with Beijing over Internet freedom. >>> >>> "We stand for a single Internet where all of humanity has >>> equal access to >>> knowledge and ideas." Clinton's words may sound perfectly >>> right to some in >>> the West, but would be regarded as a new threat by people in >>> other parts of >>> the world. >>> >>> The US campaign for uncensored and free flow of information on an >>> unrestricted Internet is a disguised attempt to impose its >>> values on other >>> cultures in the name of democracy. >>> >>> The hard fact that Clinton has failed to highlight in her >>> speech is that >>> bulk of the information flowing from the US and other Western >>> countries is >>> loaded with aggressive rhetoric against those countries that >>> do not follow >>> their lead. >>> >>> In contrast, in the global information order, countries that are >>> disadvantaged could not produce the massive flow of >>> information required, >>> and could never rival the Western countries in terms of >>> information control >>> and dissemination. >>> >>> Keeping that in mind, it must be realized that when it comes >>> to information >>> content, quantity, direction and flow, there is absolutely no >>> equality and >>> fairness. >>> >>> The online freedom of unrestricted access is, thus, only >>> one-way traffic, >>> contrary to the spirit of democracy and calculated to >>> strengthen a monopoly. >>> >>> Countries disadvantaged by the unequal and undemocratic >>> information flow >>> have to protect their national interest, and take steps >>> toward this. This is >>> essential for their political stability as well as normal conduct of >>> economic and social life. >>> >>> These facts about the difficulties of developing nations, >>> though understood >>> by politicians like Clinton, are not communicated to the >>> people of Western >>> countries. Instead, those politicians publicize and pursue >>> their claims >>> purely from a Western standpoint. >>> >>> This practice is morally unworthy and has been resisted by >>> intellectuals in >>> developing countries. >>> >>> Take Google's threat to pull out of China for example. It has stirred >>> widespread debate among the public in China. The recent poll >>> conducted by >>> huanqiu.com shows a growing number of people voicing opposition to an >>> unregulated or uncensored Google in China. As many as 81 >>> percent of those >>> polled are opposed to Chinese government accepting Google's demands. >>> >>> It is not because the people of China do not want free flow >>> of information >>> or unlimited access to Internet, as in the West. It is just >>> because they >>> recognize the situation that their country is forced to face. >>> >>> Unlike advanced Western countries, Chinese society is still >>> vulnerable to >>> the effect of multifarious information flowing in, especially >>> when it is for >>> creating disorder. >>> >>> Western countries have long indoctrinated non-Western nations >>> on the issue >>> of freedom of speech. It is an aggressive political and >>> diplomatic strategy, >>> rather than a desire for moral values, that has led them to do so. >>> >>> The free flow of information is an universal value treasured >>> in all nations, >>> including China, but the US government's ideological imposition is >>> unacceptable and, for that reason, will not be allowed to succeed. >>> >>> China's real stake in the "free flow of information" is evident in its >>> refusal to be victimized by information imperialism. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Jan 25 15:07:05 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:37:05 -0430 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva Message-ID: <4B5DF9E9.7090601@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Jan 25 15:10:04 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:10:04 +0500 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva In-Reply-To: <4B5DF9E9.7090601@gmail.com> References: <4B5DF9E9.7090601@gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f71001251210v43502f97sae110deac2fd0543@mail.gmail.com> Hi, hopefully I am trying to make it! Wednesday evening sounds fine. Where can we all meet? -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone, > > The OC in Geneva is only two weeks away. Please bring up any concerns you > have that we should bring up in the meeting, and collaborate on the document > that Jeremy is facilitating. > > I expect to be present at the meeting, and hopefully there will be a remote > option. If you follow the meeting, and have input, I will be available on > skype for suggestions. > > Who else plans to be present? Can we meet on Monday evening? > > Best, > Ginger > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Jan 25 15:21:39 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:51:39 -0430 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva In-Reply-To: <701af9f71001251210v43502f97sae110deac2fd0543@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B5DF9E9.7090601@gmail.com> <701af9f71001251210v43502f97sae110deac2fd0543@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B5DFD53.6040706@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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jan 25 15:30:00 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:30:00 +0000 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva In-Reply-To: <4B5DFD53.6040706@paque.net> References: <4B5DF9E9.7090601@gmail.com> <701af9f71001251210v43502f97sae110deac2fd0543@mail.gmail.com> <4B5DFD53.6040706@paque.net> Message-ID: In message <4B5DFD53.6040706 at paque.net>, at 15:51:39 on Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Ginger Paque writes >I propose the Brasserie, front separate room (Cornavin side) at 8 p.m. >for a meeting. I think everyone knows where it is. If not, please let >us know. Wednesday evening or Monday evening? >Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Hi, hopefully I am trying to make it! > Wednesday evening sounds fine. Where can we all meet? -- 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 Mon Jan 25 15:35:54 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:35:54 +0500 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <4B5DF9E9.7090601@gmail.com> <701af9f71001251210v43502f97sae110deac2fd0543@mail.gmail.com> <4B5DFD53.6040706@paque.net> Message-ID: <701af9f71001251235i256b8f6ev920943ff4fce1a09@mail.gmail.com> Oops, yes, Monday evening on the 8th, possibly most of us will be arriving by the evening of the 8th of Feb :o) On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4B5DFD53.6040706 at paque.net>, at 15:51:39 on Mon, 25 Jan 2010, > Ginger Paque writes >> >> I propose the Brasserie, front separate room (Cornavin side) at 8 p.m. >> for a meeting. I think everyone knows where it is. If not, please let >> us know. > > Wednesday evening or Monday evening? > >> Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>  Hi, hopefully I am trying to make it! >>  Wednesday evening sounds fine. Where can we all meet? > > -- > 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 gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jan 25 15:37:07 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:07:07 -0430 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <4B5DF9E9.7090601@gmail.com> <701af9f71001251210v43502f97sae110deac2fd0543@mail.gmail.com> <4B5DFD53.6040706@paque.net> Message-ID: <4B5E00F3.7020106@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Mon Jan 25 15:53:01 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:53:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva In-Reply-To: <4B5E00F3.7020106@gmail.com> References: <4B5DF9E9.7090601@gmail.com> <701af9f71001251210v43502f97sae110deac2fd0543@mail.gmail.com> <4B5DFD53.6040706@paque.net> <4B5E00F3.7020106@gmail.com> Message-ID: <72858.57898.qm@web55204.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Hi Ginger Will there be remote participation . Please let me know. regards Shaila   Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!     From: Ginger Paque To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry Sent: Mon, January 25, 2010 12:37:07 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva "Who else plans to be present? Can we meet on Monday evening?" (Ginger) "Wednesday evening sounds fine. Where can we all meet? " (Fouad) Fouad--please check. Are you talking about the Monday evening meeting I sugested, or setting up a different meeting? **The meeting I (Ginger) propose is for Monday evening, Feb. 8th, the night before the OC, at the Brasserie, Cornavin side, in the separate room off of the main hall.** Thanks for catching this Roland. Best, Ginger Roland Perry wrote: In message <4B5DFD53.6040706 at paque.net>, at 15:51:39 on Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Ginger Paque writes > >I propose the Brasserie, front separate room (Cornavin side) at 8 p.m. >>for a meeting. I think everyone knows where it is. If not, please let >>us know. >> >Wednesday evening or Monday evening? > > >Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> Hi, hopefully I am trying to make it! >> Wednesday evening sounds fine. Where can we all meet? >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Jan 25 16:12:50 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:42:50 -0430 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva Remote Participation Possibilities In-Reply-To: <72858.57898.qm@web55204.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <4B5DF9E9.7090601@gmail.com> <701af9f71001251210v43502f97sae110deac2fd0543@mail.gmail.com> <4B5DFD53.6040706@paque.net> <4B5E00F3.7020106@gmail.com> <72858.57898.qm@web55204.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B5E0952.1090603@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 Mon Jan 25 16:40:35 2010 From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:40:35 -0200 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva In-Reply-To: <4B5DFD53.6040706@paque.net> References: <4B5DF9E9.7090601@gmail.com> <701af9f71001251210v43502f97sae110deac2fd0543@mail.gmail.com> <4B5DFD53.6040706@paque.net> Message-ID: <4B5E0FD3.2040907@nic.br> Ginger, You said Monday and Fouad refers to Wednesday. My understanding is that the meeting will be at 08:00 on Monday, right? Hartmut ------------------------- Ginger Paque wrote: > I propose the Brasserie, front separate room (Cornavin side) at 8 p.m. > for a meeting. I think everyone knows where it is. If not, please let > us know. > > gp > > Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> Hi, hopefully I am trying to make it! >> >> Wednesday evening sounds fine. Where can we all meet? >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Jan 25 16:45:13 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:15:13 -0430 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva In-Reply-To: <4B5E0FD3.2040907@nic.br> References: <4B5DF9E9.7090601@gmail.com> <701af9f71001251210v43502f97sae110deac2fd0543@mail.gmail.com> <4B5DFD53.6040706@paque.net> <4B5E0FD3.2040907@nic.br> Message-ID: <4B5E10E9.3060704@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Jan 25 19:55:10 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:55:10 -0200 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva In-Reply-To: <4B5DF9E9.7090601@gmail.com> References: <4B5DF9E9.7090601@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B5E3D6E.2010803@cafonso.ca> Fine with me, Ginger. --c.a. Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone, > > The OC in Geneva is only two weeks away. Please bring up any concerns > you have that we should bring up in the meeting, and collaborate on the > document that Jeremy is facilitating. > > I expect to be present at the meeting, and hopefully there will be a > remote option. If you follow the meeting, and have input, I will be > available on skype for suggestions. > > Who else plans to be present? Can we meet on Monday evening? > > Best, > Ginger > -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Jan 26 05:32:43 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:02:43 -0430 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva Remote Participation Possibilities In-Reply-To: <0A1EBE09-D16D-47B0-AA82-A336742F85C3@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4B5DF9E9.7090601@gmail.com> <701af9f71001251210v43502f97sae110deac2fd0543@mail.gmail.com> <4B5DFD53.6040706@paque.net> <4B5E00F3.7020106@gmail.com> <72858.57898.qm@web55204.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4B5E0952.1090603@paque.net> <0A1EBE09-D16D-47B0-AA82-A336742F85C3@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4B5EC4CB.3030700@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shahzad at bytesforall.net Tue Jan 26 10:51:53 2010 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:51:53 +0500 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva In-Reply-To: <4B5E3D6E.2010803@cafonso.ca> References: <4B5DF9E9.7090601@gmail.com> <4B5E3D6E.2010803@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4960A826E42948CE9EEA136F101FF660@Shahzadahmad> Dear Ginger, We would also like to follow the meeting remotely. Thanks and best wishes Shahzad ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carlos A. Afonso" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 5:55 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva > Fine with me, Ginger. > > --c.a. > > Ginger Paque wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> The OC in Geneva is only two weeks away. Please bring up any concerns >> you have that we should bring up in the meeting, and collaborate on the >> document that Jeremy is facilitating. >> >> I expect to be present at the meeting, and hopefully there will be a >> remote option. If you follow the meeting, and have input, I will be >> available on skype for suggestions. >> >> Who else plans to be present? Can we meet on Monday evening? >> >> Best, >> Ginger >> > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > CGI.br (www.cgi.br) > Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) > ==================================== > new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca > ==================================== > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue Jan 26 11:19:42 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:19:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva Remote Participation Possibilities In-Reply-To: <4B5EC4CB.3030700@gmail.com> References: <4B5DF9E9.7090601@gmail.com> <701af9f71001251210v43502f97sae110deac2fd0543@mail.gmail.com> <4B5DFD53.6040706@paque.net> <4B5E00F3.7020106@gmail.com> <72858.57898.qm@web55204.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4B5E0952.1090603@paque.net> <0A1EBE09-D16D-47B0-AA82-A336742F85C3@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B5EC4CB.3030700@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi On Jan 26, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi Bill and all, > > Thanks for the correct name and information on the site. (Faulty memory). Please note the link that Bill has provided. I was suggesting the side room--as you note, it is the only way to talk. We already have 8 confirmations, so could you make the reservation for us please? Why don't we return to this off line and closer to the date, when we have a final head count and are sure people are coming... Cheers 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 kboakye at gmail.com Tue Jan 26 13:08:39 2010 From: kboakye at gmail.com (Kwasi) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:08:39 GMT Subject: [governance] BBC E-mail: EU to monitor anti-piracy trial Message-ID: <20100126_180908_067883.kboakye@gmail.com> Kwasi saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you should see it. ** EU to monitor anti-piracy trial ** The European Commission agrees to monitor Virgin Media's trial of anti-piracy software after a complaint from privacy activists. < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/technology/8480699.stm > ** BBC Daily E-mail ** Choose the news and sport headlines you want - when you want them, all in one daily e-mail < http://www.bbc.co.uk/email > ** Disclaimer ** The BBC is not responsible for the content of this e-mail, and anything written in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect the BBC's views or opinions. Please note that neither the e-mail address nor name of the sender have been verified. If you do not wish to receive such e-mails in the future or want to know more about the BBC's Email a Friend service, please read our frequently asked questions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/4162471.stm ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue Jan 26 02:44:23 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:44:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva Remote Participation Possibilities In-Reply-To: <4B5E0952.1090603@paque.net> References: <4B5DF9E9.7090601@gmail.com> <701af9f71001251210v43502f97sae110deac2fd0543@mail.gmail.com> <4B5DFD53.6040706@paque.net> <4B5E00F3.7020106@gmail.com> <72858.57898.qm@web55204.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4B5E0952.1090603@paque.net> Message-ID: <0A1EBE09-D16D-47B0-AA82-A336742F85C3@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Ginger, Les Brasseurs http://www.les-brasseurs.ch/news/geneve/index.htm is generally very crowded, could be even on a Monday night. If you're thinking people will stand around at the bar drinking there's no problem, if you want to have a meeting and/or eat we'd need a head count and to reserve the room on the side as in years past, if available. Skye during the consultation sounds useful too.... Cheers, Bill On Jan 25, 2010, at 10:12 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > I hope to send information about remote participation possibilities within a day or two. > > It would be good to get as many people/organizations involved as possible, both to follow the proceedings, and to make substantive input if appropriate. > > I also find it very helpful to have IGC members on Skype during meetings, for "instant feedback". > > Best, gp > > shaila mistry wrote: >> >> Hi Ginger >> Will there be remote participation . Please let me know. >> regards >> Shaila >> >> Life is too short ....challenge the rules >> Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly >> Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! >> >> >> From: Ginger Paque >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry >> Sent: Mon, January 25, 2010 12:37:07 PM >> Subject: Re: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva >> >> " Who else plans to be present? Can we meet on Monday evening?" (Ginger) >> "Wednesday evening sounds fine. Where can we all meet? " (Fouad) >> >> Fouad--please check. Are you talking about the Monday evening meeting I sugested, or setting up a different meeting? >> >> **The meeting I (Ginger) propose is for Monday evening, Feb. 8th, the night before the OC, at the Brasserie, Cornavin side, in the separate room off of the main hall.** >> >> Thanks for catching this Roland. >> >> Best, Ginger >> >> Roland Perry wrote: >> >>> In message <4B5DFD53.6040706 at paque.net>, at 15:51:39 on Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Ginger Paque writes >>>> I propose the Brasserie, front separate room (Cornavin side) at 8 p.m. >>>> for a meeting. I think everyone knows where it is. If not, please let >>>> us know. >>> >>> Wednesday evening or Monday evening? >>> >>>> Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>>> Hi, hopefully I am trying to make it! >>>> Wednesday evening sounds fine. Where can we all meet? > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 datos-personales.org Tue Jan 26 19:13:44 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:13:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva Remote Participation Possibilities In-Reply-To: <4B5EC4CB.3030700@gmail.com> References: <4B5DF9E9.7090601@gmail.com> <701af9f71001251210v43502f97sae110deac2fd0543@mail.gmail.com> <4B5DFD53.6040706@paque.net> <4B5E00F3.7020106@gmail.com> <72858.57898.qm@web55204.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4B5E0952.1090603@paque.net> <0A1EBE09-D16D-47B0-AA82-A336742F85C3@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B5EC4CB.3030700@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8EFC592E-8B58-4F77-881C-3B25F0D8649F@datos-personales.org> Katitza, Sent from my iPhone On Jan 26, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi Bill and all, > > Thanks for the correct name and information on the site. (Faulty > memory). Please note the link that Bill has provided. I was > suggesting the side room--as you note, it is the only way to talk. > We already have 8 confirmations, so could you make the reservation > for us please? > > Thanks! Ginger > > William Drake wrote: >> >> Hi Ginger, >> >> Les Brasseurs http://www.les-brasseurs.ch/news/geneve/index.htm is >> generally very crowded, could be even on a Monday night. If you're >> thinking people will stand around at the bar drinking there's no >> problem, if you want to have a meeting and/or eat we'd need a head >> count and to reserve the room on the side as in years past, if >> available. >> >> Skye during the consultation sounds useful too.... >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bill >> >> On Jan 25, 2010, at 10:12 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> I hope to send information about remote participation >>> possibilities within a day or two. >>> >>> It would be good to get as many people/organizations involved as >>> possible, both to follow the proceedings, and to make substantive >>> input if appropriate. >>> >>> I also find it very helpful to have IGC members on Skype during >>> meetings, for "instant feedback". >>> >>> Best, gp >>> >>> shaila mistry wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Ginger >>>> Will there be remote participation . Please let me know. >>>> regards >>>> Shaila >>>> >>>> Life is too short ....challenge the rules >>>> Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly >>>> Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Ginger Paque >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry >>> > >>>> Sent: Mon, January 25, 2010 12:37:07 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva >>>> >>>> " Who else plans to be present? Can we meet on Monday >>>> evening?" (Ginger) >>>> "Wednesday evening sounds fine. Where can we all meet? " (Fouad) >>>> >>>> Fouad--please check. Are you talking about the Monday evening >>>> meeting I sugested, or setting up a different meeting? >>>> >>>> **The meeting I (Ginger) propose is for Monday evening, Feb. 8th, >>>> the night before the OC, at the Brasserie, Cornavin side, in the >>>> separate room off of the main hall.** >>>> >>>> Thanks for catching this Roland. >>>> >>>> Best, Ginger >>>> >>>> Roland Perry wrote: >>>> >>>>> In message <4B5DFD53.6040706 at paque.net>, at 15:51:39 on Mon, 25 >>>>> Jan 2010, Ginger Paque writes >>>>>> I propose the Brasserie, front separate room (Cornavin side) at >>>>>> 8 p.m. >>>>>> for a meeting. I think everyone knows where it is. If not, >>>>>> please let >>>>>> us know. >>>>> >>>>> Wednesday evening or Monday evening? >>>>> >>>>>> Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>>>>> Hi, hopefully I am trying to make it! >>>>>> Wednesday evening sounds fine. Where can we all meet? >>>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> *********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> Senior Associate >> Centre for International Governance >> Graduate Institute of International and >> Development Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland >> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html >> *********************************************************** >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 datos-personales.org Mon Jan 25 17:33:26 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:33:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] International Privacy Day: Real Problems, Real Solutions References: Message-ID: <21135B32-3BE5-4C31-AF72-760DF82A62D6@datos-personales.org> International Privacy Day: Real Problems, Real Solutions ---------------------------------- January 28 is International Privacy Day, the day that the first international convention for privacy was signed. Many groups around the world are celebrating this day. As supporters of the Madrid Declaration, we are calling on national governments to ratify the Privacy Convention 108. As the Declaration states, we urge countries: - "that have not ratified Council of Europe Convention 108 together with the Protocol of 2001 to do so as expeditiously as possible." - "that have not yet established a comprehensive framework for privacy protection and an independent data protection authority to do so as expeditiously as possible;" - "that have established legal frameworks for privacy protection to ensure effective implementation and enforcement, and to cooperate at the international and regional level;" The Madrid Privacy Declaration is a substantial document that reaffirms international instruments for privacy protection, identifies new challenges, and call for concrete actions. More than 300 privacy and consumer experts and organizations around the globe have signed the Declaration. ACTIONS: ENDORSE: The Madrid Privacy Declaration. Spread the word. http://www.thepublicvoice.org/madrid-declaration INVITE your friends. BECOME a Fan. http://www.facebook.com/pages/International-Privacy-Day/264341804606 TWEET: International #Privacy Day: Real Problems, Real Solutions #privacyday #dpd http://www.facebook.com/pages/International-Privacy-Day/264341804606 BLOG: About "January 28: International Privacy Day. Real Problems, Real Solutions" and celebrate the anniversary of the Council of Europe Convention on Data Protection. PROMOTE: The ¨Privacy - January 28¨ banner. http://thepublicvoice.org/privacy-day.jpg POST: A Privacy Video. ORGANIZE: A campaign. WATCH: A movie. Here are a few of our favorites -"Gattaca," "Enemy of the State," "The Lives of Others," "Eagle Eye¨ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Jan 25 22:59:57 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:59:57 +0500 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva In-Reply-To: <4B5E0FD3.2040907@nic.br> References: <4B5DF9E9.7090601@gmail.com> <701af9f71001251210v43502f97sae110deac2fd0543@mail.gmail.com> <4B5DFD53.6040706@paque.net> <4B5E0FD3.2040907@nic.br> Message-ID: <701af9f71001251959l721e2f86y8f16f50b34f4c10f@mail.gmail.com> Dear Hartmut, I coincidently typed Wednesday by mistake because I was replying to a bunch of other emails as well. Its a human error. Please refer to Monday that Ginger has informed. We will meet on Monday!!! On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 2:40 AM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > > Ginger, > > You said Monday and Fouad refers to Wednesday. My understanding is that the > meeting will be at 08:00 on Monday, right? > > > Hartmut > > ------------------------- > > Ginger Paque wrote: > > I propose the Brasserie, front separate room (Cornavin side) at 8 p.m. for a > meeting. I think everyone knows where it is. If not, please let us know. > > gp > > Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > Hi, hopefully I am trying to make it! > > Wednesday evening sounds fine. Where can we all meet? > > -- 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jan 26 23:37:03 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:37:03 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION Message-ID: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> Here is the final version of our statement for the next open consultation, incorporating the latest comments made on the list. A 48 hour consensus call on this will be made later this week. Between now and then, please suggest only very important changes that would make the difference for you between supporting the statement and opposing it. Many thanks. Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards governmental stakeholders as it is at present. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that for instance the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. It is perceived that this was partly due to the cancellation of the September MAG meeting, in favour of an open planning session, ahead of the IGF meeting in Sharm el Sheikh. In this context, we have an observation to make about the proposal that there should be only one MAG meeting in 2010. The fact that a formal decision is yet to be taken on whether the IGF is to be renewed and in what form is not seen by the IGC as a decisive factor against the rotation. However if a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. On this note, we would like to re-propose the adoption of a human rights agenda for the Vilnius meeting, along with the inclusion of a development agenda in Internet governance as a cross cutting theme. The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. Similarly, in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. This could include the development of an ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. Alternatively the main responsibility for intersessional work could be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members plus outsiders, to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF. We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. About the IGC The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. -- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jan 27 01:00:24 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:00:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> References: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Here is the final version of our statement for the next open consultation, incorporating the latest comments made on the list.  A 48 hour consensus call on this will be made later this week.  Between now and then, please suggest only very important changes that would make the difference for you between supporting the statement and opposing it. OK, here goes:   > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards governmental stakeholders as it is at present.  Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent. No strong objection, but perhaps we could expand a bit and say how we want transparency to be enacted. > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings.  Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that for instance the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. I'd rather say: "Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC would like to see these decisions made by consensus of all the stakeholders." As I said before, the second part of the sentence above sounds like we are whinging about past decisions. > It is perceived that this was partly due to the cancellation of the September MAG meeting, in favour of an open planning session, ahead of the IGF meeting in Sharm el Sheikh.  In this context, we have an observation to make about the proposal that there should be only one MAG meeting in 2010.  The fact that a formal decision is yet to be taken on whether the IGF is to be renewed and in what form is not seen by the IGC as a decisive factor against the rotation.  However if a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. ok > On this note, we would like to re-propose the adoption of a human rights agenda for the Vilnius meeting, along with the inclusion of a development agenda in Internet governance as a cross cutting theme. Above is nothing to do with stock taking of 2009 meeting. It should be struck entirely IMO. > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would support outputs of such kinds).  Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. Strike entire para above. The IGF has a hard enough time publishing its proceedings (due to workshop organisers not submitting reports, etc). I don't believe the IGF has the capacity to produce any other outputs at this time and with its current budget. > Similarly, in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting.  This could include the development of an ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. Strike entire para above. The IGF has 3 intersessional work programs. One is the national and regional IGF processes, 2nd is the MAG work, 3rd is the work of the DCs. > Alternatively the main responsibility for intersessional work could be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working groups).  In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. Change above to: Given that intersessional work is done by DCs and National and Regional IGFs the IGC feels that there should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. > The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members plus outsiders, to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF. I must have missed this in previous versions. Is this the outputs referred to above? Isn't there a tremendous amount of background material available online already? Doesn't the MAG already produce a discussion synthesis? Asking MAG members to take on more work sounds to me like a "bridge too far". I'd like to strike the entire para. > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation.  We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. I'd rather say: "We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of discussions on the IGC mailing list. This bit: "with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation." belongs as inserted below: > About the IGC > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter.  More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Jan 27 03:15:47 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:15:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> References: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B5FF633.4050708@wzb.eu> > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation > of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda > of IGF meetings. Although at present this responsibility falls to the > MAG, the IGC was surprised that for instance the very strongly and > widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the > importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the > agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. > > It is perceived that this was partly due to the cancellation of the > September MAG meeting, in favour of an open planning session, ahead of > the IGF meeting in Sharm el Sheikh. I have objections with the above sentence. All MAG members who participated in the May meeting should know better. We cannot talk about details in public but even a glance at the transcript of the open consultation should make it clear that there was strong disagreement among MAG members in Spring 2009 on the 2009 agenda. A formal MAG meeting in September would not have solved these issues. The link between the open planning session in September and the substance of the 2009 agenda is, in my eyes, completely unfounded. The minimum I would thus ask for is that the sentence above says "It is perceived by some". I certainly don't perceive it that way and I am very surprised that others who participated in these meetings do. jeanette In this context, we have an > observation to make about the proposal that there should be only one MAG > meeting in 2010. The fact that a formal decision is yet to be taken on > whether the IGF is to be renewed and in what form is not seen by the IGC > as a decisive factor against the rotation. However if a rotation does > not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the > programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. > > On this note, we would like to re-propose the adoption of a human rights > agenda for the Vilnius meeting, along with the inclusion of > a development agenda in Internet governance as a cross cutting theme. > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the > development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to > recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members > would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, > efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant > external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. > > Similarly, in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have > an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single > annual meeting. This could include the development of an ongoing work > program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools > and intersessional and regional meetings. > > Alternatively the main responsibility for intersessional work could be > left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working > groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a > better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their > outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to > set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, > democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members plus > outsiders, to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc > on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF. > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, > which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from > civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender > representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage > with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > *About the IGC* > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are > actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the > lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our > mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet > governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual > subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. > More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org > . > > -- > > *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 Wed Jan 27 03:39:03 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:09:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: <4B5FF633.4050708@wzb.eu> References: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> <4B5FF633.4050708@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B5FFBA7.5040600@itforchange.net> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> It is perceived that this was partly due to the cancellation of the >> September MAG meeting, in favour of an open planning session, ahead >> of the IGF meeting in Sharm el Sheikh. > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the > participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the > substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this > responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that for > instance the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders > from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for > the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm > el Sheikh meeting. > > I have objections with the above sentence. All MAG members who > participated in the May meeting should know better. We cannot talk > about details in public but even a glance at the transcript of the > open consultation should make it clear that there was strong > disagreement among MAG members in Spring 2009 on the 2009 agenda. A > formal MAG meeting in September would not have solved these issues. > > The link between the open planning session in September and the > substance of the 2009 agenda is, in my eyes, completely unfounded. The > minimum I would thus ask for is that the sentence above says "It is > perceived by some". I certainly don't perceive it that way and I am > very surprised that others who participated in these meetings do. > > jeanette I dont think a MAG meeting in Sept would have resolved the issue. However, would it not have given us further opportunities to strategise and argue and negotiate on the issue, and on other issues we seek to put on agenda? That is the point. Holding fully-empowered MAG allows political issues to be tabled, negotiated around and possibly brought on to the agenda. CS advocacy and strategies are never a one-off thing, they are long struggles. And every occasion to take this struggle forward is useful. So, the real issue is whether we want all the MAG meetings we get or not. I think Jeremy is trying to make this point using the background of the canceled MAG meeting of Sept 2009, which some people suspect, only suspect, just may have had something to do with ardent human rights advocacy taken up by CS groups in the 2009 preparatory process. However, since this is just a conjecture of some, I am fine if our statement de-links the two issues. we can say something like. "In this regard, we find it important that all the three annual MAG meetings are held so that important issues of agenda can be decided, and fine-tuned to the necessary level of detail, through taking note of open consultations and discussion among MAG members. " Parminder > > > > In this context, we have an >> observation to make about the proposal that there should be only one >> MAG meeting in 2010. The fact that a formal decision is yet to be >> taken on whether the IGF is to be renewed and in what form is not >> seen by the IGC as a decisive factor against the rotation. However >> if a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does >> not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely >> set in stone. >> >> On this note, we would like to re-propose the adoption of a human >> rights agenda for the Vilnius meeting, along with the inclusion of a >> development agenda in Internet governance as a cross cutting theme. >> >> The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards >> the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to >> recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our >> members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its >> outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are >> transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate >> mechanisms. >> >> Similarly, in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should >> have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a >> single annual meeting. This could include the development of an >> ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through >> online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. >> >> Alternatively the main responsibility for intersessional work could >> be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific >> working groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there >> should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to >> present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the >> IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, >> including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps >> multi-stakeholder composition. >> >> The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members >> plus outsiders, to develop background material, IGF discussion >> synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF. >> >> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, >> which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from >> civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender >> representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively >> engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed >> term. >> >> *About the IGC* >> >> The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are >> actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during >> the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), >> our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in >> Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 >> individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to >> its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at >> http://www.igcaucus.org . >> >> -- >> >> *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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jan 27 03:54:42 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:54:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: References: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> Message-ID: In message , at 09:00:24 on Wed, 27 Jan 2010, McTim writes >> Similarly, in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single >>annual meeting.  This could include the development of an ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools >>and intersessional and regional meetings. > >Strike entire para above. The IGF has 3 intersessional work programs. > One is the national and regional IGF processes, 2nd is the MAG work, >3rd is the work of the DCs. Aren't the Open Consultations also intersessional work (it certainly feels like something that's in addition to a "single annual meeting"; or are you bundling them in with the MAG? -- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jan 27 04:19:31 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:19:31 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: References: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi Roland, On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> Strike entire para above.  The IGF has 3 intersessional work programs. >> One is the national and regional IGF processes, 2nd  is the MAG work, >> 3rd is the work of the DCs. > > Aren't the Open Consultations also intersessional work (it certainly feels > like something that's in addition to a "single annual meeting"; or are you > bundling them in with the MAG? yes, bundled in with "MAG work". -- 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 Wed Jan 27 04:30:59 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:30:59 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION References: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B1E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Jeremy Here are two comments: JM: It is perceived that this was partly due to the cancellation of the September MAG meeting, in favour of an open planning session, ahead of the IGF meeting in Sharm el Sheikh. In this context, we have an observation to make about the proposal that there should be only one MAG meeting in 2010. The fact that a formal decision is yet to be taken on whether the IGF is to be renewed and in what form is not seen by the IGC as a decisive factor against the rotation. However if a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. W: As Jeanette I do not see that a formal MAG meeting in September 2009 would have changed the proposed agenda substantially. I would also not support to critisize that there is only one offical MAG meeting planned for 2010. I would here add a paragraph that the IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" (SMO) mechanism for the preparation of IGFs. As I said in a previous mail, we should be here as creative as possible, we should avoid to open a "battle" about seats in a MAG and we should think ouf of the box how future IGFs can be prepared and organized in a more open and transparent way, embedded into a well structured bottom up approach, which should include all stakeholders in their respective roles on equal footing. Such a bottom up approach can go through various layers (inlcuding a MAG like layer) but the vertical communication between the layers is as important as the horizonal communcation on the various layers (as within a MAG) and has to be open and transparent. Here we should make proposals which are forward looking. We do not yet have such proposals, but we should signal in Geneva in February, that we are forward looking and we are working on this. JM: The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. W: It was the IGC which introduced the concept of "Messages" as an recognized output from an IGF (instead of negotiated recommendations). It was the proposal that the convener of each workshop would have the duty to send one or two messages to the secretariat so that a final document would emerge from the bottom. It was also said that if there is no clear single conclusion from a workshop the "messages" can be "one group says so, another group says so" so that the broader public gets an idea what the key issues in a certain area are. The IGF messages should be send to the various instiutions which have a decision making capacity: from UNESCO and ITU to ICANN and IETF. It would be something oike a "source of inspiration" for decision makers. The EURODIG has started to use this concept. We had "EURODG Messages from Strasbourg" in 2008 and "EURODIG Messages from Geneva" in 2009. In a recent preparatory meeting for EURODIG III (planned for Madrid in April 2010) we discussed already a framework for "EURODIG Messages from Madrid". With other words, also here the IGC should be the driver for innovation and be more creative. 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Jan 27 06:54:48 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:54:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: <4B5FFBA7.5040600@itforchange.net> References: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> <4B5FF633.4050708@wzb.eu> <4B5FFBA7.5040600@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B602988.8030603@wzb.eu> > I dont think a MAG meeting in Sept would have resolved the issue. > However, would it not have given us further opportunities to strategise > and argue and negotiate on the issue, and on other issues we seek to put > on agenda? That is the point. This is a matter of speculation. You think another meeting would have helped the agenda, other thought that it would jeopardize the little consensus we had on the agenda. Holding fully-empowered MAG allows > political issues to be tabled, negotiated around and possibly brought on > to the agenda. CS advocacy and strategies are never a one-off thing, > they are long struggles. And every occasion to take this struggle > forward is useful. With your last point I definitely disagree. I don't think it is a good idea to renegotiate the agenda two months before an IGF meeting. It is neither possible to invite speakers nor to arrange workshops around main sessions if the last MAG meeting before the IGF may revise the agenda. > > So, the real issue is whether we want all the MAG meetings we get or > not. This is an open issue and there is no agreement on it. Unlike you I think it is good to devote the last meeting before the IGF to the planning of main sessions and workshops, and to invite all those who are involved in organizing these events. I think Jeremy is trying to make this point using the background of > the canceled MAG meeting of Sept 2009, which some people suspect, only > suspect, I don't think such suspicions should be part of our statement. just may have had something to do with ardent human rights > advocacy taken up by CS groups in the 2009 preparatory process. However, > since this is just a conjecture of some, I am fine if our statement > de-links the two issues. we can say something like. > > "In this regard, we find it important that all the three annual MAG > meetings are held so that important issues of agenda can be decided, and > fine-tuned to the necessary level of detail, through taking note of open > consultations and discussion among MAG members. " You know that there is no consensus on this position. Several civil society members have expressed support for the open meetings in May and June on the MAG list. I find Wolfgang's suggestions much more constructive. jeanette > > Parminder > > > > >> >> >> >> In this context, we have an >>> observation to make about the proposal that there should be only one >>> MAG meeting in 2010. The fact that a formal decision is yet to be >>> taken on whether the IGF is to be renewed and in what form is not >>> seen by the IGC as a decisive factor against the rotation. However >>> if a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does >>> not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely >>> set in stone. >>> >>> On this note, we would like to re-propose the adoption of a human >>> rights agenda for the Vilnius meeting, along with the inclusion of a >>> development agenda in Internet governance as a cross cutting theme. >>> >>> The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards >>> the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to >>> recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our >>> members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its >>> outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are >>> transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate >>> mechanisms. >>> >>> Similarly, in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should >>> have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a >>> single annual meeting. This could include the development of an >>> ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through >>> online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. >>> >>> Alternatively the main responsibility for intersessional work could >>> be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific >>> working groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there >>> should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to >>> present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the >>> IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, >>> including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps >>> multi-stakeholder composition. >>> >>> The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members >>> plus outsiders, to develop background material, IGF discussion >>> synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF. >>> >>> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, >>> which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from >>> civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender >>> representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively >>> engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed >>> term. >>> >>> *About the IGC* >>> >>> The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are >>> actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during >>> the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), >>> our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in >>> Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 >>> individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to >>> its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at >>> http://www.igcaucus.org . >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *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 mueller at syr.edu Wed Jan 27 08:03:34 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:03:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <4B5EC4CB.3030700@gmail.com> References: <4B5DF9E9.7090601@gmail.com> <701af9f71001251210v43502f97sae110deac2fd0543@mail.gmail.com> <4B5DFD53.6040706@paque.net> <4B5E00F3.7020106@gmail.com> <72858.57898.qm@web55204.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4B5E0952.1090603@paque.net> <0A1EBE09-D16D-47B0-AA82-A336742F85C3@graduateinstitute.ch>,<4B5EC4CB.3030700@gmail.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6C33@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> I may be able to join the meeting around 9 pm. assuming the flight is on time. ________________________________ From: Ginger Paque [gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 5:32 AM To: William Drake Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva Remote Participation Possibilities Hi Bill and all, Thanks for the correct name and information on the site. (Faulty memory). Please note the link that Bill has provided. I was suggesting the side room--as you note, it is the only way to talk. We already have 8 confirmations, so could you make the reservation for us please? Thanks! Ginger William Drake wrote: Hi Ginger, Les Brasseurs http://www.les-brasseurs.ch/news/geneve/index.htm is generally very crowded, could be even on a Monday night. If you're thinking people will stand around at the bar drinking there's no problem, if you want to have a meeting and/or eat we'd need a head count and to reserve the room on the side as in years past, if available. Skye during the consultation sounds useful too.... Cheers, Bill On Jan 25, 2010, at 10:12 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: I hope to send information about remote participation possibilities within a day or two. It would be good to get as many people/organizations involved as possible, both to follow the proceedings, and to make substantive input if appropriate. I also find it very helpful to have IGC members on Skype during meetings, for "instant feedback". Best, gp shaila mistry wrote: Hi Ginger Will there be remote participation . Please let me know. regards Shaila Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! From: Ginger Paque To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry Sent: Mon, January 25, 2010 12:37:07 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva " Who else plans to be present? Can we meet on Monday evening?" (Ginger) "Wednesday evening sounds fine. Where can we all meet? " (Fouad) Fouad--please check. Are you talking about the Monday evening meeting I sugested, or setting up a different meeting? **The meeting I (Ginger) propose is for Monday evening, Feb. 8th, the night before the OC, at the Brasserie, Cornavin side, in the separate room off of the main hall.** Thanks for catching this Roland. Best, Ginger Roland Perry wrote: In message <4B5DFD53.6040706 at paque.net>, at 15:51:39 on Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Ginger Paque writes I propose the Brasserie, front separate room (Cornavin side) at 8 p.m. for a meeting. I think everyone knows where it is. If not, please let us know. Wednesday evening or Monday evening? Fouad Bajwa wrote: Hi, hopefully I am trying to make it! Wednesday evening sounds fine. Where can we all meet? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 27 08:28:35 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:28:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: References: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> Message-ID: SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571 +243811980914 email: b.schombe at gmail.com blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble Royal, Entrée A,7e niveau. 2010/1/27 McTim > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > > Here is the final version of our statement for the next open > consultation, incorporating the latest comments made on the list. A 48 hour > consensus call on this will be made later this week. Between now and then, > please suggest only very important changes that would make the difference > for you between supporting the statement and opposing it. > > OK, here goes: > > > > > > > > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the > composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be > more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than being > slanted towards governmental stakeholders as it is at present. Many also > believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the > selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more > transparent. > > No strong objection, but perhaps we could expand a bit and say how we > want transparency to be enacted. > > > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation > of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of > IGF meetings. Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the > IGC was surprised that for instance the very strongly and widely expressed > views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human > rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for > the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. > > > I'd rather say: > > "Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC > would like to see these decisions made by consensus of all the > stakeholders." > > As I said before, the second part of the sentence above sounds like we > are whinging about past decisions. > > > > It is perceived that this was partly due to the cancellation of the > September MAG meeting, in favour of an open planning session, ahead of > the IGF meeting in Sharm el Sheikh. In this context, we have an observation > to make about the proposal that there should be only one MAG meeting in > 2010. The fact that a formal decision is yet to be taken on whether the > IGF is to be renewed and in what form is not seen by the IGC as a decisive > factor against the rotation. However if a rotation does not take place, > care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the > Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. > > ok > > > On this note, we would like to re-propose the adoption of a human rights > agenda for the Vilnius meeting, along with the inclusion of a development > agenda in Internet governance as a cross cutting theme. > > Above is nothing to do with stock taking of 2009 meeting. It should > be struck entirely IMO. > > > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the > development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to > recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members > would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, > efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant > external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. > > Strike entire para above. The IGF has a hard enough time publishing > its proceedings (due to workshop organisers not submitting reports, > etc). I don't believe the IGF has the capacity to produce any other > outputs at this time and with its current budget. > > > Similarly, in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an > intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single annual > meeting. This could include the development of an ongoing work program for > the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and intersessional > and regional meetings. > > Strike entire para above. The IGF has 3 intersessional work programs. > One is the national and regional IGF processes, 2nd is the MAG work, > 3rd is the work of the DCs. > > very good clarifiation, Tim > > > Alternatively the main responsibility for intersessional work could be > left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working > groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better > mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the > IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent > standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, > and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > Change above to: > Given that intersessional work is done by DCs and National and > Regional IGFs the IGC feels that there should be a better mechanism > than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF > as a whole. > > > > The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members plus > outsiders, to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on > major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF. > > I must have missed this in previous versions. Is this the outputs > referred to above? Isn't there a tremendous amount of background > material available online already? Doesn't the MAG already produce a > discussion synthesis? Asking MAG members to take on more work sounds > to me like a "bridge too far". I'd like to strike the entire para. > > > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, > which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil > society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation. We > look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in > the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > I'd rather say: > "We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, > which reflect a "rough consensus" of discussions on the IGC mailing > list. > > This bit: > "with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation." > > belongs as inserted below: > > > About the IGC > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society > > with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation > > who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed > during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society > (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in > Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 > individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its > Charter. More about our coalition can be found at > http://www.igcaucus.org. > > -- > 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Jan 27 08:51:19 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:51:19 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: <4B5FF633.4050708@wzb.eu> References: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> <4B5FF633.4050708@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <701af9f71001270551m61151028sfbcba3fc529d620d@mail.gmail.com> Hi Jeanette, I have been particularly uncomfortable with the ambiguous claiming through phrases like "It is perceived by some" as it makes a lot of suspicion in our own activities. I had earlier requested elsewhere that these statements should represent consensus through absolute statements mutually agreed and not ambiguities. Secondly, we all know that not many MAG members were in approval of cancelling the MAG meeting of Sept 2009 but the decision was still taken ahead. As far as how this paragraph states, somehow this perception is not from us CS MAG members because we are well aware what happened and what has been happening. Maybe having a Sept meeting could have solved the issues to "some extent" only but yes with more participation and coordination, MAG members ''could have" countered some of the issues in a possible Sept 2009 meet. Right now the issue is that even this advantage that CS groups have through its MAG representation may also face a certain level of setback due to the experimentation going on though this is only an assumption at this stage. My question has been why hasn't this experimentation been done through a MAG meeting with proper discourse on it from all group representations. I feel that the new MAG members selected last year never even went through the complete MAG process so instead of adding advantage to the MAG interventions, we were not allowed to complete the process and a great deal of that was also observed during the IGF2009. This is a back to back kind of situation or where we say viz-a-viz and even vice versa. Where the change was supposed to happen, the process got lagged, changes and innovations required were delayed. The Internet and its issues have been increasing at the rate of Moore's Law but the speed of the IGF itself has been decreasing to improve the open and global dialogue that takes place through it. I feel that the MAG has to face a bit of openness and creativity here as well because of some slight changes it did not foresee happening. The people and the MAG combined will be the test which is a very open approach indeed. What will have to be seen is that how the MAG will take into account necessary decisions for the program settings. I feel that the representatives of the three multistakeholder groups will be able to closely and actively work with their MAG members to take the possible substantial innovations/changes/improvements and/or finalizations. It would be worth a try but I am still not too sure how this will work and has to be experienced. This would actually innovate the underlying governance model of this global dialogue space and maybe the world is closely watching with keen interest to what will be the outcome. The idea for the open consultations/public meetings before the IGF2009 seemed like a pretty good idea and was an improvement in deciding how things should go forward but the capturing of the floor by international organizations and the members from the multistakeholder groups to tell stories about how wonderful their organizations and projects were a bit of a noise and disturbing. I walked in and out of a same session thrice and I heard ICANN repeating the same story about its multistakeholder approach and ITU's attempts to share how their contributions were being made. Something was really wrong with the program I tell you and it goes to all of us MAG members and our colleagues present in the public meetings not being able to fix there problems that could have been done so with proper intervention but how could they be, we weren't left the possibility. I am yet to find innovation or changes in a locked down schedule. Please think and rethink what we want to do this year and how we want IGF2010 to be. Should it be a wrestling ring for ICANN and ITU or should it be the actual space themed and organized for its original mandate? Best Fouad On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > >> One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation >> of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of >> IGF meetings.  Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the >> IGC was surprised that for instance the very strongly and widely expressed >> views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human >> rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for >> the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. >> >> It is perceived that this was partly due to the cancellation of the >> September MAG meeting, in favour of an open planning session, ahead of the >> IGF meeting in Sharm el Sheikh. > > I have objections with the above sentence. All MAG members who participated > in the May meeting should know better. We cannot talk about details in > public  but even a glance at the transcript of the open consultation should > make it clear that there was strong disagreement among MAG members in Spring > 2009 on the 2009 agenda. A formal MAG meeting in September would not have > solved these issues. > > The link between the open planning session in September and the substance of > the 2009 agenda is, in my eyes, completely unfounded. The minimum I would > thus ask for is that the sentence above says "It is perceived by some". I > certainly don't perceive it that way and I am very surprised that others who > participated in these meetings do. > > jeanette > > > > In this context, we have an >> >> observation to make about the proposal that there should be only one MAG >> meeting in 2010.  The fact that a formal decision is yet to be taken on >> whether the IGF is to be renewed and in what form is not seen by the IGC as >> a decisive factor against the rotation.  However if a rotation does not take >> place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the >> Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. >> >> On this note, we would like to re-propose the adoption of a human rights >> agenda for the Vilnius meeting, along with the inclusion of a development >> agenda in Internet governance as a cross cutting theme. >> >> The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the >> development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to >> recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members >> would support outputs of such kinds).  Whatever form its outputs take, >> efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant >> external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. >> >> Similarly, in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an >> intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single annual >> meeting.  This could include the development of an ongoing work program for >> the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and intersessional >> and regional meetings. >> >> Alternatively the main responsibility for intersessional work could be >> left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working >> groups).  In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better >> mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the >> IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent >> standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, >> and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. >> >> The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members plus >> outsiders, to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on >> major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF. >> >> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which >> reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil >> society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation.  We >> look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in >> the IGF over the course of its renewed term. >> >> *About the IGC* >> >> The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are actively >> engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the >> World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote >> global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It >> now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who >> have subscribed to its Charter.  More about our coalition can be found at >> http://www.igcaucus.org . >> >> -- >> >> *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 email at hakik.org Wed Jan 27 11:48:30 2010 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:48:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: References: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20100127164957.CB5D491462@npogroups.org> I hope IGF could be strengthened through these 3 intersessional work programs (One is the national and regional IGF processes, 2nd is the MAG work, 3rd is the work of the DCs.), as mentioned by McTim. Best regards, Hakikur Rahman At 13:28 27-01-2010, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: >SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN >COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) >COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC >MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE >GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN) > >Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571 > +243811980914 >email: b.schombe at gmail.com >blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr >siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble Royal, Entrée A,7e niveau. > > >2010/1/27 McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> >On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Jeremy Malcolm ><jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote: > > > > Here is the final version of our statement > for the next open consultation, incorporating > the latest comments made on the list. A 48 > hour consensus call on this will be made later > this week. Between now and then, please > suggest only very important changes that would > make the difference for you between supporting the statement and opposing it. > >OK, here goes: > > > > > > > > > One question on which the IGC is in clear > agreement is that the composition of the > Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself > should be more evenly divided between the > stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted > towards governmental stakeholders as it is at > present. Many also believe that the > stakeholders should have a more direct role in > the selection of MAG members, and that MAG > discussions should be more transparent. > >No strong objection, but perhaps we could expand a bit and say how we >want transparency to be enacted. > > > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations > in which the participation of stakeholders > could be improved is in setting the substantive > agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present > this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC > was surprised that for instance the very > strongly and widely expressed views of > stakeholders from civil society as to the > importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF > was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. > > >I'd rather say: > >"Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC >would like to see these decisions made by consensus of all the >stakeholders." > >As I said before, the second part of the sentence above sounds like we >are whinging about past decisions. > > > > It is perceived that this was partly due to > the cancellation of the September MAG meeting, > in favour of an open planning session, ahead of > the IGF meeting in Sharm el Sheikh. In this > context, we have an observation to make about > the proposal that there should be only one MAG > meeting in 2010. The fact that a formal > decision is yet to be taken on whether the IGF > is to be renewed and in what form is not seen > by the IGC as a decisive factor against the > rotation. However if a rotation does not take > place, care must be taken that this does not > result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. > >ok > > > On this note, we would like to re-propose the > adoption of a human rights agenda for the > Vilnius meeting, along with the inclusion of a > development agenda in Internet governance as a cross cutting theme. > >Above is nothing to do with stock taking of 2009 meeting. It should >be struck entirely IMO. > > > > The IGF should also consider how to improve > its orientation towards the development of > tangible outputs, even if these do not amount > to recommendations, declarations or statements > (though many of our members would support > outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its > outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure > that they are transmitted to relevant external > institutions through appropriate mechanisms. > >Strike entire para above. The IGF has a hard enough time publishing >its proceedings (due to workshop organisers not submitting reports, >etc). I don't believe the IGF has the capacity to produce any other >outputs at this time and with its current budget. > > > Similarly, in order to maximise its > effectiveness, the IGF should have an > intersessional work program, rather than being > limited to a single annual meeting. This could > include the development of an ongoing work > program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried > on through online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. > >Strike entire para above. The IGF has 3 intersessional work programs. > One is the national and regional IGF processes, 2nd is the MAG work, >3rd is the work of the DCs. > > very good clarifiation, Tim > > > Alternatively the main responsibility for > intersessional work could be left to dynamic > coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific > working groups). In that case, it is widely > accepted that there should be a better > mechanism than at present for these groups to > present their outputs to the IGF as a > whole. This would require the IGF to begin to > set more stringent standards for such groups, > including open membership, democratic > processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > >Change above to: >Given that intersessional work is done by DCs and National and >Regional IGFs the IGC feels that there should be a better mechanism >than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF >as a whole. > > > > The MAG should also organize thematic working > groups of MAG members plus outsiders, to > develop background material, IGF discussion > synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF. > >I must have missed this in previous versions. Is this the outputs >referred to above? Isn't there a tremendous amount of background >material available online already? Doesn't the MAG already produce a >discussion synthesis? Asking MAG members to take on more work sounds >to me like a "bridge too far". I'd like to strike the entire para. > > > > We thank you for the opportunity to present > you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough > consensus" of our several hundred members from > civil society, with a wide spread of geographic > and gender representation. We look forward to > continuing to constructively engage with and > participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > >I'd rather say: >"We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, >which reflect a "rough consensus" of discussions on the IGC mailing >list. > >This bit: >"with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation." > >belongs as inserted below: > > > About the IGC > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society > >with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation > >who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed >during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society >(WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in >Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 >individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its >Charter. More about our coalition can be found at >http://www.igcaucus.org. > >-- >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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 27 11:56:45 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:26:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: <4B602988.8030603@wzb.eu> References: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> <4B5FF633.4050708@wzb.eu> <4B5FFBA7.5040600@itforchange.net> <4B602988.8030603@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B60704D.4020600@itforchange.net> All, This isnt going anywhere and I may just give it up, but before that one last attempt to clarify the issue on which IGC's position is sought for Feb open consultations. Whether MAG will at all meet in May and June this year, or whether the Feb meeting will be the last MAG meeting? I am not sure why what is being proposed is not being made very clear and issue of relatively open MAG meetings is being mixed with having *no* MAG meeting under the stamp and authority of MAG at all, where substantive decisions on agenda, including its fine-tuning etc, and the structure of next IGF (all the talk of evolution and innovation, these are not possible without MAG stamp), can be taken up. Wolfgang (and he is privy to MAG list discussions) in saying "I would also not support to critisize that there is only one offical MAG meeting planned for 2010". confirms that this is the proposal on the table. Jeanette, can you also help by agreeing that the issue is as I framed. I have said many times now that I am for more open participation in MAG meetings of people associated with workshops etc as was also done in 2008. We can even get more open, but without declaring that there is no MAG left to do anything after Feb. Also to highlight that the proposer of this proposal mentioned it as a 'do we need a MAG at all experiment' and so IGC may also have an opinion on the intent and substance of this experiment too. What is interesting is that some of us are ready that Feb meeting closes the IGF-5's agenda, while we have not even proposed any specific agenda at all!! So maybe, it is like, what the heck, let anything happen at the IGF, or let anything not happen.... As long as status quo is protected, whomever it serves. Parminder Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > >> I dont think a MAG meeting in Sept would have resolved the issue. >> However, would it not have given us further opportunities to >> strategise and argue and negotiate on the issue, and on other issues >> we seek to put on agenda? That is the point. > > This is a matter of speculation. You think another meeting would have > helped the agenda, other thought that it would jeopardize the little > consensus we had on the agenda. > > Holding fully-empowered MAG allows >> political issues to be tabled, negotiated around and possibly brought >> on to the agenda. CS advocacy and strategies are never a one-off >> thing, they are long struggles. And every occasion to take this >> struggle forward is useful. > > With your last point I definitely disagree. I don't think it is a good > idea to renegotiate the agenda two months before an IGF meeting. It is > neither possible to invite speakers nor to arrange workshops around > main sessions if the last MAG meeting before the IGF may revise the > agenda. >> >> So, the real issue is whether we want all the MAG meetings we get or >> not. > > This is an open issue and there is no agreement on it. Unlike you I > think it is good to devote the last meeting before the IGF to the > planning of main sessions and workshops, and to invite all those who > are involved in organizing these events. > > > I think Jeremy is trying to make this point using the background of >> the canceled MAG meeting of Sept 2009, which some people suspect, >> only suspect, > > I don't think such suspicions should be part of our statement. > > just may have had something to do with ardent human rights >> advocacy taken up by CS groups in the 2009 preparatory process. >> However, since this is just a conjecture of some, I am fine if our >> statement de-links the two issues. we can say something like. >> >> "In this regard, we find it important that all the three annual MAG >> meetings are held so that important issues of agenda can be decided, >> and fine-tuned to the necessary level of detail, through taking note >> of open consultations and discussion among MAG members. " > > You know that there is no consensus on this position. Several civil > society members have expressed support for the open meetings in May > and June on the MAG list. I find Wolfgang's suggestions much more > constructive. > jeanette >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> In this context, we have an >>>> observation to make about the proposal that there should be only >>>> one MAG meeting in 2010. The fact that a formal decision is yet to >>>> be taken on whether the IGF is to be renewed and in what form is >>>> not seen by the IGC as a decisive factor against the rotation. >>>> However if a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that >>>> this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being >>>> prematurely set in stone. >>>> >>>> On this note, we would like to re-propose the adoption of a human >>>> rights agenda for the Vilnius meeting, along with the inclusion of >>>> a development agenda in Internet governance as a cross cutting theme. >>>> >>>> The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards >>>> the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to >>>> recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our >>>> members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its >>>> outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are >>>> transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate >>>> mechanisms. >>>> >>>> Similarly, in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should >>>> have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a >>>> single annual meeting. This could include the development of an >>>> ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on >>>> through online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. >>>> >>>> Alternatively the main responsibility for intersessional work could >>>> be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific >>>> working groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there >>>> should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to >>>> present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require >>>> the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, >>>> including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps >>>> multi-stakeholder composition. >>>> >>>> The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members >>>> plus outsiders, to develop background material, IGF discussion >>>> synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF. >>>> >>>> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these >>>> thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred >>>> members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and >>>> gender representation. We look forward to continuing to >>>> constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the >>>> course of its renewed term. >>>> >>>> *About the IGC* >>>> >>>> The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are >>>> actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during >>>> the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), >>>> our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in >>>> Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 >>>> individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to >>>> its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org . >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> *Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Project Coordinator* >>>> Consumers International >>>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >>>> Lumpur, Malaysia >>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>> >>>> *CI is 50* >>>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer >>>> movement in 2010. >>>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect >>>> consumer rights around the world. >>>> _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_ >>>> >>>> Read our email confidentiality notice >>>> . >>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 27 12:27:26 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:27:26 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: <4B60704D.4020600@itforchange.net> References: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> <4B5FF633.4050708@wzb.eu> <4B5FFBA7.5040600@itforchange.net> <4B602988.8030603@wzb.eu> <4B60704D.4020600@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Parminder wrote: > All, > > This isnt going anywhere and I  may just give it up, but before that one > last attempt to clarify the issue on which IGC's position is sought for Feb > open consultations. > > Whether MAG will  at all meet in May and June this year, or whether the Feb > meeting will be the last MAG meeting? Do you have any text to suggest? How about: "Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC would like to see these decisions made by consensus of all the stakeholders at the May Open Consultation/MAG meeting." -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jan 27 12:41:53 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:41:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: <4B602988.8030603@wzb.eu> References: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> <4B5FF633.4050708@wzb.eu> <4B5FFBA7.5040600@itforchange.net> <4B602988.8030603@wzb.eu> Message-ID: In message <4B602988.8030603 at wzb.eu>, at 11:54:48 on Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Jeanette Hofmann writes >I don't think it is a good idea to renegotiate the agenda two months >before an IGF meeting. It is neither possible to invite speakers nor to >arrange workshops around main sessions if the last MAG meeting before >the IGF may revise the agenda. Which is exactly why I have earlier suggested that having a MAG meeting (rather than another September09-ish meeting) in July 2010 is a bad idea. -- 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 Jan 27 12:54:11 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:54:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: References: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> <4B5FF633.4050708@wzb.eu> <4B5FFBA7.5040600@itforchange.net> <4B602988.8030603@wzb.eu> Message-ID: In message , at 17:41:53 on Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Roland Perry writes >>I don't think it is a good idea to renegotiate the agenda two months >>before an IGF meeting. It is neither possible to invite speakers nor >>to arrange workshops around main sessions if the last MAG meeting >>before the IGF may revise the agenda. > >Which is exactly why I have earlier suggested that having a MAG meeting >(rather than another September09-ish meeting) in July 2010 is a bad >idea. Sorry, it's June 28/29th (almost July!) -- 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 Wed Jan 27 13:04:40 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:34:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: References: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> <4B5FF633.4050708@wzb.eu> <4B5FFBA7.5040600@itforchange.net> <4B602988.8030603@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B608038.4020001@itforchange.net> Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4B602988.8030603 at wzb.eu>, at 11:54:48 on Wed, 27 Jan 2010, > Jeanette Hofmann writes >> I don't think it is a good idea to renegotiate the agenda two months >> before an IGF meeting. It is neither possible to invite speakers nor >> to arrange workshops around main sessions if the last MAG meeting >> before the IGF may revise the agenda. > > Which is exactly why I have earlier suggested that having a MAG > meeting (rather than another September09-ish meeting) in July 2010 is > a bad idea. Let us tie our hands, lest we do something wrong! This just comes from lack of faith in governance processes. Why would we think that a MAG like group will be so stupid as to go about doing stuff that is not in the best interest of the IGF? Why then, lets not have any MAG and even any IGF at all, who knows what they may come up with and upset happily settled apple carts. (No one really spoke about 'renegotiating' agenda at the last moment! Did anyone. So this rhetoric is unnecessary and distracting. Only about fine-tuning language, getting closer to specific topics/ policy questions, deciding things about structural evolutions, detailing agenda for moderators etc, anything that may need a last minute decision - why preempt? And also why such an eagerness to forget that it is not only the third meeting we are speaking about dispensing with here, but also the second!!) 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Jan 27 14:23:47 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:53:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> References: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hello Jeremy (I have placed part of your text and part of what I have written in parenthesis to indicate what may not form part of the IGC statement) On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of > the IGF* > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of > the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the > discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. > (However if,) > (This "however, if" uncertainty does not send the right signals to all the organizations involved in the process of reviewing the IGF mandate for renewal. It conveys doubt rather than 'hope' that the mandate would be extended. It sounds as if we ourselves do not believe in the IGF cause and the merits of an extended IGF.) > (as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further termthere > are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, > continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its > inauguration in 2006.) > (It might sound better if this sentence is changed to) "We emphasize that the merits of an extended IGF is appreciated by the UN and its organs and we urge the UN to extend the mandate for another five years. We believe that the IGF in the next five years would continue to be increasingly valuable as its pattern of all round improvements continues. > > (None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an > institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by > the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under > contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs > (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a > different UN body such as the ITU.) > In its process of transition, we consider it important that the UN Secretary General continues to convene the IGF; We are opposed to any proposal for an enhanced role for the ITU in the renewed IGF. If the UN so wishes, it could consider several models of transition, all with a continued mandate from the United Nations. possibly with a independent model of funding. One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition > of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly > divided between the stakeholder groups, > (rather than being slanted towards governmental stakeholders as it is at > present.) > to set right the present imbalance of a higher proportion of members from the Government. > Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in > the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more > transparent. > > (One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation > of) stakeholders could be > more included in such tasks as the setting of > (improved is in setting) the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. > We also believe that the IGF introduces a participatory process to design the main sessions > Although at present the responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was > surprised that for instance the very strongly and widely expressed views of > stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights > agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the > Sharm el Sheikh meeting. > (My views on this point differs from that of most of the IGC participants, so I refrain from commenting on the above statement) > > (It is perceived that this was partly due to the cancellation of the > September MAG meeting, in favour of an open planning session, ahead of > the IGF meeting in Sharm el Sheikh) > (An assumption such as this is out of place in a formal statement such as this) > (In this context, we have an observation to make about the proposal that > there should be only one MAG meeting in 2010.) > (What is the purpose of restricting the number of meetings to one in this crucial year? I would rather propose that the members of MAG is stationed in Geneva in extended sessions to discuss the tasks related to extension of the mandate) > (The fact that a formal decision is yet to be taken on whether the IGF is > to be renewed and in what form is not seen by the IGC as a decisive factor > against the rotation. However if a rotation does not take place, care must > be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting > being prematurely set in stone.) > The IGC considers it unnecessary to alter the practice of rotation of MAG members. > > On this note, we would like to re-propose the adoption of a human rights > agenda for the Vilnius meeting, along with the inclusion of a development > agenda in Internet governance as a cross cutting theme. > I feel that we need to have further discussion on this before proposing a human rights agenda for the Vilinius meeting. > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the > development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to > recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members > would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, > efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant > external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. > Similarly, in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an > intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single annual > meeting. This could include the development of an ongoing work program for > the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and intersessional > and regional meetings. > > Alternatively the main responsibility for intersessional work could be left > to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working groups). In > that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better mechanism > than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a > whole. This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards > for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, and > perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members plus > outsiders, to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on > major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF. > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which > reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil > society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation. We > look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in > the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > *About the IGC* > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are actively > engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the > World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote > global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It > now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who > have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at > http://www.igcaucus.org. > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer > rights around the world. > *http://www.consumersinternational.org/50* > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 27 14:23:31 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:23:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: <4B608038.4020001@itforchange.net> References: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> <4B5FF633.4050708@wzb.eu> <4B5FFBA7.5040600@itforchange.net> <4B602988.8030603@wzb.eu> <4B608038.4020001@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4B608038.4020001 at itforchange.net>, at 23:34:40 on Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Parminder writes >>> I don't think it is a good idea to renegotiate the agenda two months >>>before an IGF meeting. It is neither possible to invite speakers nor >>>to arrange workshops around main sessions if the last MAG meeting >>>before the IGF may revise the agenda. >> >> Which is exactly why I have earlier suggested that having a MAG >>meeting (rather than another September09-ish meeting) in July 2010 is >>a bad idea. > >Let us tie our hands, lest we do something wrong! > >This just comes from lack of faith in governance processes. Why would >we think that a MAG like group will be so stupid as to go about doing >stuff that is not in the best interest of the IGF? On the contrary, I think the MAG would be acting sensibly (ie not stupidly) by recognising that by the last week in June there was nothing useful which could come out of their meeting that would constructively affect the Vilnius main meeting during July, August and the first two weeks of September; especially given that the community which organises workshops (and similar events) went home two days before. Or looking at it from a non-MAG person's viewpoint: Far better to conclude virtually all the arrangements as part of a September09-ish co-operative open meeting in June, than to leave Geneva on the 27th June wondering what the MAG might be about to change two days later, and how that might affect everything you have just put in place. Trust me, I have been organising regular mid-September meetings for a few years now... It's not easy! None of this detracts from the need for the MAG to MAG-type-things in May, but I do believe they should be aiming to finish all of that, in May. -- 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 27 16:54:43 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:54:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Censorship In-Reply-To: <4B608038.4020001@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <232828.33364.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> What up here Ginger? This Parminder directly attacks Roland and specifically calls what he is doing bad, this is Rolands livelyhood so it is definate defamation if not true.  Why when I use the same concept far more abstractly. am I called on the carpet -- but not Parminder???   I think you should retract your censorship of me. I think that your attempt to curtail my participation and not Parminder shows just how innappropriate censorship is. --- On Wed, 1/27/10, Parminder wrote: From: Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Roland Perry" Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 6:04 PM Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4B602988.8030603 at wzb.eu>, at 11:54:48 on Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Jeanette Hofmann writes >> I don't think it is a good idea to renegotiate the agenda two months before an IGF meeting. It is neither possible to invite speakers nor to arrange workshops around main sessions if the last MAG meeting before the IGF may revise the agenda. > > Which is exactly why I have earlier suggested that having a MAG meeting (rather than another September09-ish meeting) in July 2010 is a bad idea. Let us tie our hands, lest we do something wrong! This just comes from lack of faith in governance processes. Why would we think that a MAG like group will be so stupid as to go about doing stuff that is not in the best interest of the IGF? Why then, lets not have any MAG and even any IGF at all, who knows what they may come up with and upset happily settled apple carts. (No one really spoke about 'renegotiating' agenda at the last moment! Did anyone. So this rhetoric is unnecessary and distracting. Only about fine-tuning language, getting closer to specific topics/ policy questions, deciding things about structural evolutions, detailing agenda for moderators etc, anything that may need a last minute decision - why preempt? And also why such an eagerness to forget that it is not only the third meeting we are speaking about dispensing with here, but also the second!!) 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 27 17:09:52 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:39:52 -0430 Subject: [governance] Re: Censorship In-Reply-To: <232828.33364.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <232828.33364.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B60B9B0.6030102@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Jan 27 17:17:41 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:17:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: <4B60704D.4020600@itforchange.net> References: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> <4B5FF633.4050708@wzb.eu> <4B5FFBA7.5040600@itforchange.net> <4B602988.8030603@wzb.eu> <4B60704D.4020600@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B60BB85.5030006@wzb.eu> > Wolfgang (and he is privy to MAG list discussions) in saying > > "I would also not support to critisize that there is only one offical > MAG meeting planned for 2010". > > confirms that this is the proposal on the table. Jeanette, can you also > help by agreeing that the issue is as I framed. Sorry, I don't understand what exactly you want me to confirm. It seems obvious that we associate very different things with opening up the MAG to other participants. We also have different expectations of what the MAG can actually achieve. What you call fine-tuning is in my view not the job of the MAG but of the people who actually organize specific events. My personal example is the preparation of the main session on critical internet resources. I have now done this twice. Each time, the part of the MAG part was to agree on general issues that should be discussed in the main session (also specified by the MAG). The fine tuning was not done by the entire MAG but by an informal group consisting of people/experts interested in the topics and the moderators. I expect the same division of labor between MAG and active participants will develop again this year. I don't understand what's wrong with this division of labor as long as we make sure that interested parties can get involved. jeanette I have said many times > now that I am for more open participation in MAG meetings of people > associated with workshops etc as was also done in 2008. We can even get > more open, but without declaring that there is no MAG left to do > anything after Feb. Also to highlight that the proposer of this proposal > mentioned it as a 'do we need a MAG at all experiment' and so IGC may > also have an opinion on the intent and substance of this experiment too. > > What is interesting is that some of us are ready that Feb meeting closes > the IGF-5's agenda, while we have not even proposed any specific agenda > at all!! So maybe, it is like, what the heck, let anything happen at > the IGF, or let anything not happen.... As long as status quo is > protected, whomever it serves. > > Parminder > > > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> >> >>> I dont think a MAG meeting in Sept would have resolved the issue. >>> However, would it not have given us further opportunities to >>> strategise and argue and negotiate on the issue, and on other issues >>> we seek to put on agenda? That is the point. >> >> This is a matter of speculation. You think another meeting would have >> helped the agenda, other thought that it would jeopardize the little >> consensus we had on the agenda. >> >> Holding fully-empowered MAG allows >>> political issues to be tabled, negotiated around and possibly brought >>> on to the agenda. CS advocacy and strategies are never a one-off >>> thing, they are long struggles. And every occasion to take this >>> struggle forward is useful. >> >> With your last point I definitely disagree. I don't think it is a good >> idea to renegotiate the agenda two months before an IGF meeting. It is >> neither possible to invite speakers nor to arrange workshops around >> main sessions if the last MAG meeting before the IGF may revise the >> agenda. >>> >>> So, the real issue is whether we want all the MAG meetings we get or >>> not. >> >> This is an open issue and there is no agreement on it. Unlike you I >> think it is good to devote the last meeting before the IGF to the >> planning of main sessions and workshops, and to invite all those who >> are involved in organizing these events. >> >> >> I think Jeremy is trying to make this point using the background of >>> the canceled MAG meeting of Sept 2009, which some people suspect, >>> only suspect, >> >> I don't think such suspicions should be part of our statement. >> >> just may have had something to do with ardent human rights >>> advocacy taken up by CS groups in the 2009 preparatory process. >>> However, since this is just a conjecture of some, I am fine if our >>> statement de-links the two issues. we can say something like. >>> >>> "In this regard, we find it important that all the three annual MAG >>> meetings are held so that important issues of agenda can be decided, >>> and fine-tuned to the necessary level of detail, through taking note >>> of open consultations and discussion among MAG members. " >> >> You know that there is no consensus on this position. Several civil >> society members have expressed support for the open meetings in May >> and June on the MAG list. I find Wolfgang's suggestions much more >> constructive. >> jeanette >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In this context, we have an >>>>> observation to make about the proposal that there should be only >>>>> one MAG meeting in 2010. The fact that a formal decision is yet to >>>>> be taken on whether the IGF is to be renewed and in what form is >>>>> not seen by the IGC as a decisive factor against the rotation. >>>>> However if a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that >>>>> this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being >>>>> prematurely set in stone. >>>>> >>>>> On this note, we would like to re-propose the adoption of a human >>>>> rights agenda for the Vilnius meeting, along with the inclusion of >>>>> a development agenda in Internet governance as a cross cutting theme. >>>>> >>>>> The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards >>>>> the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to >>>>> recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our >>>>> members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its >>>>> outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are >>>>> transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate >>>>> mechanisms. >>>>> >>>>> Similarly, in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should >>>>> have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a >>>>> single annual meeting. This could include the development of an >>>>> ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on >>>>> through online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. >>>>> >>>>> Alternatively the main responsibility for intersessional work could >>>>> be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific >>>>> working groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there >>>>> should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to >>>>> present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require >>>>> the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, >>>>> including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps >>>>> multi-stakeholder composition. >>>>> >>>>> The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members >>>>> plus outsiders, to develop background material, IGF discussion >>>>> synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF. >>>>> >>>>> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these >>>>> thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred >>>>> members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and >>>>> gender representation. We look forward to continuing to >>>>> constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the >>>>> course of its renewed term. >>>>> >>>>> *About the IGC* >>>>> >>>>> The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are >>>>> actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during >>>>> the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), >>>>> our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in >>>>> Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 >>>>> individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to >>>>> its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org . >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> *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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jan 27 17:43:07 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:43:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] Censorship In-Reply-To: <232828.33364.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <4B608038.4020001@itforchange.net> <232828.33364.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In message <232828.33364.qm at web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 13:54:43 on Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Eric Dierker writes >What up here Ginger? This Parminder directly attacks Roland and >specifically calls what he is doing bad, this is Rolands livelyhood >so it is definate defamation if not true. What are you talking about? I'm not on the MAG and don't perceive Parminder's remarks as an attack. My only motivation here is a harmonious and (as much as is possible) stress-free run-up to the next 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Jan 27 21:13:20 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:13:20 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: References: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Siva I do appreciate these suggestions for improvement, but are they all "deal breakers" for you? If not, can I request that you narrow them down to the parts of the text that you simply cannot abide in their present form? If there are just some changes that would be "nice to have", I ask you to hold back on demanding those at this late stage of settling the text. Thanks! On 28/01/2010, at 3:23 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Jeremy > > (I have placed part of your text and part of what I have written in parenthesis to indicate what may not form part of the IGC statement) > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. > > (However if,) > > (This "however, if" uncertainty does not send the right signals to all the organizations involved in the process of reviewing the IGF mandate for renewal. It conveys doubt rather than 'hope' that the mandate would be extended. It sounds as if we ourselves do not believe in the IGF cause and the merits of an extended IGF.) > > (as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further termthere are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006.) > > (It might sound better if this sentence is changed to) > > "We emphasize that the merits of an extended IGF is appreciated by the UN and its organs and we urge the UN to extend the mandate for another five years. We believe that the IGF in the next five years would continue to be increasingly valuable as its pattern of all round improvements continues. > > > (None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU.) > > In its process of transition, we consider it important that the UN Secretary General continues to convene the IGF; We are opposed to any proposal for an enhanced role for the ITU in the renewed IGF. If the UN so wishes, it could consider several models of transition, all with a continued mandate from the United Nations. possibly with a independent model of funding. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, > > > (rather than being slanted towards governmental stakeholders as it is at present.) > > to set right the present imbalance of a higher proportion of members from the Government. > > Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent. > > (One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of) stakeholders could be > > more included in such tasks as the setting of > > (improved is in setting) the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. > > We also believe that the IGF introduces a participatory process to design the main sessions > > Although at present the responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that for instance the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. > > (My views on this point differs from that of most of the IGC participants, so I refrain from commenting on the above statement) > > (It is perceived that this was partly due to the cancellation of the September MAG meeting, in favour of an open planning session, ahead of the IGF meeting in Sharm el Sheikh) > > (An assumption such as this is out of place in a formal statement such as this) > > (In this context, we have an observation to make about the proposal that there should be only one MAG meeting in 2010.) > > (What is the purpose of restricting the number of meetings to one in this crucial year? I would rather propose that the members of MAG is stationed in Geneva in extended sessions to discuss the tasks related to extension of the mandate) > > > (The fact that a formal decision is yet to be taken on whether the IGF is to be renewed and in what form is not seen by the IGC as a decisive factor against the rotation. However if a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone.) > > The IGC considers it unnecessary to alter the practice of rotation of MAG members. > > > On this note, we would like to re-propose the adoption of a human rights agenda for the Vilnius meeting, along with the inclusion of a development agenda in Internet governance as a cross cutting theme. > > I feel that we need to have further discussion on this before proposing a human rights agenda for the Vilinius meeting. > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. > > Similarly, in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. This could include the development of an ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. > > Alternatively the main responsibility for intersessional work could be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members plus outsiders, to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF. > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > About the IGC > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. > > -- > 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 > -- 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 Wed Jan 27 21:51:59 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:21:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: <4B60BB85.5030006@wzb.eu> References: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> <4B5FF633.4050708@wzb.eu> <4B5FFBA7.5040600@itforchange.net> <4B602988.8030603@wzb.eu> <4B60704D.4020600@itforchange.net> <4B60BB85.5030006@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B60FBCF.1030603@itforchange.net> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> Wolfgang (and he is privy to MAG list discussions) in saying >> >> "I would also not support to critisize that there is only one offical >> MAG meeting planned for 2010". >> >> confirms that this is the proposal on the table. Jeanette, can you >> also help by agreeing that the issue is as I framed. > > Sorry, I don't understand what exactly you want me to confirm. I thought I would leave this now, but if you insist, I will say it once again. I want you to confirm the following, so those who may want to make an opinion on this matter can do so. 1. That the proposal on the table is *not* to have more open MAG meetings following open consultations, but have *no* MAG meeting at all after Feb. In fact even have no MAG at all after Feb. 2. That the proponent of this proposal in the MAG list, and you yourself on this list, mentioned it as a 'do-we-even-need-a-MAG' experiment. Because others can then judge it as an experiment, with possible implications of conclusion of 'success' of the experiment (whoever makes the criteria and evaluation). Also judge the implications of doing such an experiment at a time which more legitimate processes of review and possible restructuring of the IGF/ MAG are already on. Parminder > It seems obvious that we associate very different things with opening > up the MAG to other participants. > > We also have different expectations of what the MAG can actually > achieve. What you call fine-tuning is in my view not the job of the > MAG but of the people who actually organize specific events. > > My personal example is the preparation of the main session on critical > internet resources. I have now done this twice. Each time, the part of > the MAG part was to agree on general issues that should be discussed > in the main session (also specified by the MAG). The fine tuning was > not done by the entire MAG but by an informal group consisting of > people/experts interested in the topics and the moderators. I expect > the same division of labor between MAG and active participants will > develop again this year. I don't understand what's wrong with this > division of labor as long as we make sure that interested parties can > get involved. > > jeanette > > > > I have said many times >> now that I am for more open participation in MAG meetings of people >> associated with workshops etc as was also done in 2008. We can even >> get more open, but without declaring that there is no MAG left to do >> anything after Feb. Also to highlight that the proposer of this >> proposal mentioned it as a 'do we need a MAG at all experiment' and >> so IGC may also have an opinion on the intent and substance of this >> experiment too. >> >> What is interesting is that some of us are ready that Feb meeting >> closes the IGF-5's agenda, while we have not even proposed any >> specific agenda at all!! So maybe, it is like, what the heck, let >> anything happen at the IGF, or let anything not happen.... As long as >> status quo is protected, whomever it serves. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> I dont think a MAG meeting in Sept would have resolved the issue. >>>> However, would it not have given us further opportunities to >>>> strategise and argue and negotiate on the issue, and on other >>>> issues we seek to put on agenda? That is the point. >>> >>> This is a matter of speculation. You think another meeting would >>> have helped the agenda, other thought that it would jeopardize the >>> little consensus we had on the agenda. >>> >>> Holding fully-empowered MAG allows >>>> political issues to be tabled, negotiated around and possibly >>>> brought on to the agenda. CS advocacy and strategies are never a >>>> one-off thing, they are long struggles. And every occasion to take >>>> this struggle forward is useful. >>> >>> With your last point I definitely disagree. I don't think it is a >>> good idea to renegotiate the agenda two months before an IGF >>> meeting. It is neither possible to invite speakers nor to arrange >>> workshops around main sessions if the last MAG meeting before the >>> IGF may revise the agenda. >>>> >>>> So, the real issue is whether we want all the MAG meetings we get >>>> or not. >>> >>> This is an open issue and there is no agreement on it. Unlike you I >>> think it is good to devote the last meeting before the IGF to the >>> planning of main sessions and workshops, and to invite all those who >>> are involved in organizing these events. >>> >>> >>> I think Jeremy is trying to make this point using the background of >>>> the canceled MAG meeting of Sept 2009, which some people suspect, >>>> only suspect, >>> >>> I don't think such suspicions should be part of our statement. >>> >>> just may have had something to do with ardent human rights >>>> advocacy taken up by CS groups in the 2009 preparatory process. >>>> However, since this is just a conjecture of some, I am fine if our >>>> statement de-links the two issues. we can say something like. >>>> >>>> "In this regard, we find it important that all the three annual MAG >>>> meetings are held so that important issues of agenda can be >>>> decided, and fine-tuned to the necessary level of detail, through >>>> taking note of open consultations and discussion among MAG members. " >>> >>> You know that there is no consensus on this position. Several civil >>> society members have expressed support for the open meetings in May >>> and June on the MAG list. I find Wolfgang's suggestions much more >>> constructive. >>> jeanette >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In this context, we have an >>>>>> observation to make about the proposal that there should be only >>>>>> one MAG meeting in 2010. The fact that a formal decision is yet >>>>>> to be taken on whether the IGF is to be renewed and in what form >>>>>> is not seen by the IGC as a decisive factor against the >>>>>> rotation. However if a rotation does not take place, care must >>>>>> be taken that this does not result in the programme for the >>>>>> Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. >>>>>> >>>>>> On this note, we would like to re-propose the adoption of a human >>>>>> rights agenda for the Vilnius meeting, along with the inclusion >>>>>> of a development agenda in Internet governance as a cross cutting >>>>>> theme. >>>>>> >>>>>> The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation >>>>>> towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not >>>>>> amount to recommendations, declarations or statements (though >>>>>> many of our members would support outputs of such kinds). >>>>>> Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure >>>>>> that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions >>>>>> through appropriate mechanisms. >>>>>> >>>>>> Similarly, in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should >>>>>> have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to >>>>>> a single annual meeting. This could include the development of >>>>>> an ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on >>>>>> through online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alternatively the main responsibility for intersessional work >>>>>> could be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other >>>>>> issue-specific working groups). In that case, it is widely >>>>>> accepted that there should be a better mechanism than at present >>>>>> for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. >>>>>> This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent >>>>>> standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic >>>>>> processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. >>>>>> >>>>>> The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG >>>>>> members plus outsiders, to develop background material, IGF >>>>>> discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up >>>>>> by the IGF. >>>>>> >>>>>> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these >>>>>> thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several >>>>>> hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of >>>>>> geographic and gender representation. We look forward to >>>>>> continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the >>>>>> IGF over the course of its renewed term. >>>>>> >>>>>> *About the IGC* >>>>>> >>>>>> The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are >>>>>> actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed >>>>>> during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society >>>>>> (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest >>>>>> objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises >>>>>> more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who >>>>>> have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be >>>>>> found at http://www.igcaucus.org . >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> *Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>> Project Coordinator* >>>>>> Consumers International >>>>>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >>>>>> Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>>> >>>>>> *CI is 50* >>>>>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer >>>>>> movement in 2010. >>>>>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect >>>>>> consumer rights around the world. >>>>>> _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_ >>>>>> >>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice >>>>>> . >>>>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Jan 27 23:46:04 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:46:04 +1100 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD - 247 billion or 42 decillion? Message-ID: 42,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That's how many IPv6 addresses have been allocated to US DOD according to the link below - and that's significantly more than large telcos. http://royal.pingdom.com/2009/03/26/the-us-department-of-defense-has-42-mill ion-billion-billion-billion-ipv6-addresses/ Even if this is factually incorrect, plenty of sources put the number of addresses allocated at 247 billion. Eg http://gcn.com/Articles/2007/02/03/DOD-to-allocate-its-IPv6-addresses.aspx?P age=1 In either case, the number is huge, in excess of allocations to bodies who have greater neeeds for IP numbers, and hardly allocated on the basis of need. I wonder if someone can let us know the correct number allocated or reserved for US DOD use? It would also be useful to know how the decision on the allocation was taken. If the number was simply allocated because it was asked for, that seems a very naïve decision in an age where claims of information imperialism are being made. Surely someone in the relevant internet governance area (ARIN?) would have thought about the policy implications? Or if there was simply no choice - US DOD gets what it wants, no questions asked, questions need to be raised about the independence of internet governance structures. Yes I know, there are plenty of numbers available (they said that with IPv4 as well). But that's hardly the point. Can someone enlighten us with the details of this allocation and how it was made? Ian Peter ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 28 04:40:12 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:40:12 +0300 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD - 247 billion or 42 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ian, On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > 42,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. > > That's how many IPv6 addresses have been allocated to US DOD according to > the link below - and that's significantly more than large telcos. Woohoo, those are big numbers indeed. However, while not my job to defend ARIN, I can perhaps offer some perspective that may make this seem more reasonable. First, all numbers in IPv6 are large, that is by design. 2nd, In IPv6, one wants to think in terms of subnets and not individual addresses. So if DoD is assigning /48 subnets, a /16 is "only" 4G (roughly one billion) /48s. 3rd, the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual, (https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html) which specifies how allocations are made says. inter alia; 6.4.4. Consideration of IPv4 Infrastructure "Where an existing IPv4 service provider requests IPv6 space for eventual transition of existing services to IPv6, the number of present IPv4 customers may be used to justify a larger request than would be justified if based solely on the IPv6 infrastructure." Now, a quick search of ARIN Whois at https://www.arin.net shows 126 ASNs for the DOD. So if you divide the 4G by 126, you get around 31 million /48 subnets per ASN. Of course, some networks will not get that amount, and some will get much more. When one takes into account RFID and things like sensor nets for everything from auto parts tracking, to canteens, dog tags, weapons, etc, etc, one can see why one may want to have such a large amount of address space. > > http://royal.pingdom.com/2009/03/26/the-us-department-of-defense-has-42-mill > ion-billion-billion-billion-ipv6-addresses/ > > Even if this is factually incorrect, plenty of sources put the number of > addresses allocated at 247 billion. This would be very incorrect, as each allocation of a /32 (standard size unless you can show that you need more) contains 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 possible IPs, but again, that's IPv4 think, we should rather think in terms of prefix sizes. > > Eg > http://gcn.com/Articles/2007/02/03/DOD-to-allocate-its-IPv6-addresses.aspx?P > age=1 The articles leads with: "The Defense Department has acquired a block of 247 billion IP Version 6 addresses, about equal to 25 percent of the entire IPv4 address space. " If you know that there are ~4 billion possible IPv4 addresses, you know that 25% of that is around 1 Billion, NOT 247 billion, so take this info with a whole bag of salt, not just with a pinch. In other words, don't believe everything you read online. > > In either case, the number is huge, in excess of allocations to bodies who > have greater neeeds for IP numbers, and hardly allocated on the basis of > need. Is this speculation on your part or statement of fact? > > I wonder if someone can let us know the correct number allocated or reserved > for US DOD use? It would also be useful to know how the decision on the > allocation was taken. https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XIX/mem_notes.html says: "An attendee asked about the Department of Defense justification and qualification of a /12. Leslie corrected the statement, saying the organization had qualified for 4 /16s. ARIN President and CEO Ray Plzak responded that the justification underwent intense scrutiny and the RSA negotiation lasted more than a year. ARIN Counsel Steve Ryan added that the agreement contains the provision indicating that the department will return unused IPv4 resources that the Department decides are not necessary for U.S. Government use. He also pointed out that it will help move the US economy toward IPv6 because the Department's contractor base will need to operate IPv6." So the answer is 4 /16s or 1 /14. Allocations are made according to the policies in the NRPM. I doubt this one was any different. > > If the number was simply allocated because it was asked for, that seems a > very naïve decision in an age where claims of information imperialism are > being made. Surely someone in the relevant internet governance area (ARIN?) > would have thought about the policy implications? Do you mean policy or political ;) > > Or if there was simply no choice - US DOD gets what it wants, no questions > asked, questions need to be raised about the independence of internet > governance structures. As cited above, questions were asked and answered for a whole year! > > Yes I know, there are plenty of numbers available (they said that with IPv4 > as well). But that's hardly the point. What is the point exactly? Proportionally speaking the DoD now has a very small fraction of the address space compared to what it has in IPv4. > > Can someone enlighten us with the details of this allocation and how it was > made? Done, hopefully. NB: All numbers done on the back of a fag packet, or in my head, so YMMV. -- 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Jan 28 04:47:39 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:17:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD - 247 billion or 42 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Ian, On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > 42,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. > That amounts to 0.01234% of all IP addresses possible. If every other country gets allocations in the same proportion, roughly about 2.5% of all possible addresses will be the allotment to the DODs of all National Governments. (That is for the Departments of Defense alone. In the US, if the DOD gets 0.01234% of all addresses, will there be other divisions of US Government such as the DOC applying for their own numbers for networks under their own jurisdiction?) > > That's how many IPv6 addresses have been allocated to US DOD according to > the link below - and that's significantly more than large telcos. > the number is huge, in excess of allocations to bodies who > have greater neeeds for IP numbers, and > hardly allocated on the basis of need. ? Or perhaps the DoD might 'need' so many addresses to control the flow of information anywhere in the world in future? > If the number was simply allocated because it was asked for, that seems a > very naïve decision in an age where claims of information imperialism are > being made. Surely someone in the relevant internet governance area (ARIN?) > would have thought about the policy implications? > > Or if there was simply no choice - US DOD gets what it wants, no questions > asked, questions need to be raised about the independence of internet > governance structures. > > These are really valid questions. We also need to worry about the use foreseen by the Department of Defense for so many IPv6 addresses. This should be enough IP address to assign to every little bullet that the DoD will ever use. Or by some future invention, the DoD may assign a second IP v 6 address to every computer or IP enable thing anywhere on Earth for which the superfiicial and known IPv6 address could be the one obtained by the user and the second would be a DoD assigned invisible number for ease of surveillance? ( If this is far fetched, it is merely as far fetched as the huge size of the addresses that the DoD has obtained.) The article says that the DoD's address block is 64 times larger than any other block allocated to anyone else. This seems to be in tune with the American notions of America's role in defending not only America but the whole world. I am more concerned about US DOD's unknown concepts for future based on which it has asked for so many addresses. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Yes I know, there are plenty of numbers available (they said that with IPv4 > as well). But that's hardly the point. > > > Ian Peter > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 maxsenges at gmail.com Thu Jan 28 07:25:44 2010 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:25:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] And yet Google again: Online petition against In-Reply-To: <4B5ADAD3.9080901@cafonso.ca> References: <329558.94834.qm@web55406.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4B5ADAD3.9080901@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4d976d8e1001280425r2f23abb1x400fcbbf941b9248@mail.gmail.com> Hi everybody I checked and found this official blogpost http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/04/how-google-determines-names-for-bodies.html best max ........................................................................... Max Senges Berlin www.maxsenges.com Mobile: 01622122755 On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Yes... but I just checked, and, first, the UN says it continues to be > officially "Persian Gulf", and if you search Google Earth for both > "Persian Gulf" and "Arabian Gulf", you get to the same general place -- > the Gulf. Why the fuzz, really? > > --c.a. > > Teresa Nacli-Napoli wrote: > > Just a smart way to change history, they are doing this for years with > > no complains. How about the Golan Heights that belongs to Syria and they > > show as Israeli land? > > They should say OCCUPATION and Israel is not complying with > > UN resolution 242 since 1967 . > > ????? > > > > --- On *Sat, 1/23/10, Carlos A. Afonso //* wrote: > > > > > > From: Carlos A. Afonso > > Subject: Re: [governance] And yet Google again: Online petition > > against GoogleMaps > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Rui Correia" > > Date: Saturday, January 23, 2010, 5:55 AM > > > > Strange... for us here in BR it had always been the Persian Gulf, and > > continues to be so. How did this change happen? > > > > --c.a. > > > > Rui Correia wrote: > > > One thing is for sure: good or bad, Google is getting more than > > its fair > > > share of publicity! > > > > > > We, the undersigned, through this letter, protest your > irresponsible, > > > unscientific actions, and demand an immediate and unconditional > > deletion > > > of “Arabian Gulf” from Google Earth. > > > > > > Arbitrarily designating the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf is an > > > irresponsible violation of all historical and International > standards > > > and would undermine the integrity of Google Earth. > > > > > > 1.197.422 signatures > > > > > > http://www.petitiononline.com/sos02082/petition.html > > > http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?sos02082 > > > > > > You can read about the naming dispute here: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Rui > > > > > > -- > > > ________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > Rui Correia > > > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > > > Angola Liaison Consultant > > > 2 Cutten St > > > Horison > > > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > > > South Africa > > > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > > > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > > > _______________ > > > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > > > > > > -- > > > > Carlos A. Afonso > > CGI.br (www.cgi.br) > > Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) > > ==================================== > > new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca > > ==================================== > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > CGI.br (www.cgi.br) > Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) > ==================================== > new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca > ==================================== > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu Jan 28 08:54:38 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:24:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: References: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hello Jeremy, On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Siva I do appreciate these suggestions for improvement, but are they all > "deal breakers" for you? If not, can I request that you narrow them down to > the parts of the text that you simply cannot abide in their present form? > If there are just some changes that would be "nice to have", I ask you to > hold back on demanding those at this late stage of settling the text. > It is late and in commenting on the 'final'draft, my intention wasn't to hinder or delay the IGC from sending its statement. Most of my comments would fit into "nice to have" category However I will classify them in detail here: Strongly feel about INCLUDING 'However, if' and feel that that part of the statement could be changed to read ""We emphasize that the merits of an extended IGF is appreciated by the UN and its organs and we urge the UN to extend the mandate for another five years. We believe that the IGF in the next five years would continue to be increasingly valuable as its pattern of all round improvements continues. " (as replacement for that portion of your original text that I had shown in parenthesis) Strongly feel about INCLUDING (as replacement for that portion of your original text that I had shown in parenthesis) "In its process of transition, we consider it important that the UN Secretary General continues to convene the IGF; *We are opposed to any proposal for an enhanced role for the ITU in the renewed IGF *(The ITU is dangerous and would do immense harm to the Internet). If the UN so wishes, it could consider several models of transition, all with a continued mandate from the United Nations. possibly with a independent model of funding." (it is good to make the IGC independant, but independant in such a way that ITC does not get in. And it is also important for the IGF to have an official 'status' which is why I emphasized the need for a continuing UN mandate.) Strongly feel about DROPPING the suggestion to limit the number of MAG meeting to a maximum of one. Would be nice to include this comment and suggestion: 'We also believe that the IGF introduces a participatory process to design the main sessions " The statement about the inclusion of rights could stay because most of IGC is in favor of pushing the Rights agenda. My differences on this is subtle, My position is that it would be nice to define and proclaim rights, without considering Rights as the central task and insisting on a "rights-based" approach to Internet Governance. I stand alone in my objection. It is sufficient if IGC takes note that I am opposed to this statement, but IGC could proceed with this statement as it chooses to. I reserve further comments on this. The rest of my comments are intended to smoothen the flow. If you don't consider it as a comment on your choice of words, if it is OK for you to admit some of these changes, it would be nice to change parts of the statement changed to what I have suggested. ( I should also say that I sent my comments in a hurry - without including a 'preamble' or explaining the rationale. When I read what I wrote, it sounded like a confrontation with you. It was not intended to sound like that.) Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > Thanks! > > On 28/01/2010, at 3:23 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > Hello Jeremy > > (I have placed part of your text and part of what I have written in > parenthesis to indicate what may not form part of the IGC statement) > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> >> *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of >> the IGF* >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of >> the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the >> discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. >> > > (However if,) >> > > (This "however, if" uncertainty does not send the right signals to all the > organizations involved in the process of reviewing the IGF mandate for > renewal. It conveys doubt rather than 'hope' that the mandate would be > extended. It sounds as if we ourselves do not believe in the IGF cause and > the merits of an extended IGF.) > > >> (as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further termthere >> are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, >> continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its >> inauguration in 2006.) >> > > (It might sound better if this sentence is changed to) > > "We emphasize that the merits of an extended IGF is appreciated by the UN > and its organs and we urge the UN to extend the mandate for another five > years. We believe that the IGF in the next five years would continue to be > increasingly valuable as its pattern of all round improvements continues. > > >> >> (None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an >> institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by >> the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under >> contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs >> (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a >> different UN body such as the ITU.) >> > > In its process of transition, we consider it important that the UN > Secretary General continues to convene the IGF; We are opposed to any > proposal for an enhanced role for the ITU in the renewed IGF. If the UN so > wishes, it could consider several models of transition, all with a continued > mandate from the United Nations. possibly with a independent model of > funding. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition >> of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly >> divided between the stakeholder groups, >> > > > (rather than being slanted towards governmental stakeholders as it is at >> present.) >> > > to set right the present imbalance of a higher proportion of members from > the Government. > > >> Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in >> the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more >> transparent. >> >> (One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation >> of) stakeholders could be >> > > more included in such tasks as the setting of > > >> (improved is in setting) the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. >> > > We also believe that the IGF introduces a participatory process to design > the main sessions > > >> Although at present the responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was >> surprised that for instance the very strongly and widely expressed views of >> stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights >> agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the >> Sharm el Sheikh meeting. >> > > (My views on this point differs from that of most of the IGC participants, > so I refrain from commenting on the above statement) > >> >> (It is perceived that this was partly due to the cancellation of the >> September MAG meeting, in favour of an open planning session, ahead of >> the IGF meeting in Sharm el Sheikh) >> > > (An assumption such as this is out of place in a formal statement such as > this) > > >> (In this context, we have an observation to make about the proposal that >> there should be only one MAG meeting in 2010.) >> > > (What is the purpose of restricting the number of meetings to one in this > crucial year? I would rather propose that the members of MAG is stationed in > Geneva in extended sessions to discuss the tasks related to extension of the > mandate) > > > >> (The fact that a formal decision is yet to be taken on whether the IGF is >> to be renewed and in what form is not seen by the IGC as a decisive factor >> against the rotation. However if a rotation does not take place, care must >> be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting >> being prematurely set in stone.) >> > > The IGC considers it unnecessary to alter the practice of rotation of MAG > members. > > >> >> On this note, we would like to re-propose the adoption of a human rights >> agenda for the Vilnius meeting, along with the inclusion of a development >> agenda in Internet governance as a cross cutting theme. >> > > I feel that we need to have further discussion on this before proposing a > human rights agenda for the Vilinius meeting. > >> >> The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the >> development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to >> recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members >> would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, >> efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant >> external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. >> > > Similarly, in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an >> intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single annual >> meeting. This could include the development of an ongoing work program for >> the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and intersessional >> and regional meetings. >> >> Alternatively the main responsibility for intersessional work could be >> left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working >> groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better >> mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the >> IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent >> standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, >> and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. >> >> The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members plus >> outsiders, to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on >> major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF. >> >> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which >> reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil >> society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation. We >> look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in >> the IGF over the course of its renewed term. >> >> *About the IGC* >> >> The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are actively >> engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the >> World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote >> global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It >> now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who >> have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at >> http://www.igcaucus.org. >> >> -- >> >> *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 >> > > > -- > > *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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Jan 28 10:01:16 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:01:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: 21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org Message-ID: I also echo Sivasubramanian's ITU concerns. > "... We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN > body such as the ITU. ..." The line is too-weak and apprehensive, They (the Powers to be) will simply 'not address it' and let it pass over. It must be a more defined Stated-Position. Per Siva: (I massaged it alittle) " We are opposed to any 'enhanced role' for the ITU in convening the IGF" Also support the Statement for Position, for Oral Argument (Our advocacy) at the MAG Table. Now is the TIME , Lets be PREPAREed, In a Post IGF World: The ITU will assimilate the Advocacy-Space we now enjoy. Statements already made by the ITU Chair, have positioned themselves for that assimilation. As a consequence of that ... we must respond and address a Position. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 28 12:50:35 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:50:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> References: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <707D6074-7DFE-484D-A5C9-2532446495CE@graduateinstitute.ch> Hello, I've been absolutely swamped with ICANN work and conf calls the past few days and unable to contribute here. Now looking over the various interventions that have been made, I'm not quite sure what the status is of all the provisions people have supported/opposed/amended. So FWIW just a few additional points on the original. On Jan 27, 2010, at 5:37 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Here is the final version of our statement for the next open consultation, incorporating the latest comments made on the list. A 48 hour consensus call on this will be made later this week. Between now and then, please suggest only very important changes that would make the difference for you between supporting the statement and opposing it. > > Many thanks. > > Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. I think this is a sufficient and not overly aggressive way to deal with the ITU issue. I see posts today calling for bolder opposition to more of an ITU role; why would the above sentence not be enough? > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards governmental stakeholders as it is at present. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent. Personally I could do without calling the distribution 'slanted' inter alia because one of the big issues is lack of government engagement, and this after all is the UN. And despite the numbers, aren't the nongovernmentals pretty able to affect the agenda as is? If MAG is at all like WGIG, I suspect many governmentals are relatively quiet and the energy is elsewhere. So is it necessary and smart to say this when we're asking the governments to renew the IGF? > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that for instance the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. I agree with those who say this reads like sour grapes and is not appropriate for this particular statement's purpose. I'd lose the second sentence. > > It is perceived that this was partly due to the cancellation of the September MAG meeting, in favour of an open planning session, ahead of the IGF meeting in Sharm el Sheikh. Agree with those who suggest cutting this > In this context, we have an observation to make about the proposal that there should be only one MAG meeting in 2010. The fact that a formal decision is yet to be taken on whether the IGF is to be renewed and in what form is not seen by the IGC as a decisive factor against the rotation. However if a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. > > On this note, we would like to re-propose the adoption of a human rights agenda for the Vilnius meeting, along with the inclusion of a development agenda in Internet governance as a cross cutting theme. As happy as I would be to have human rights and development set as overarching themes, I'd think this should be argued for in a separate, more developed statement, rather than in a meta-assessment of IGF renewal. > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would support outputs of such kinds). Could someone explain to me what we might mean here? What's tangible, if we concede that recommendations, declarations or statements won't fly, and how would the IGF "improve its orientation" toward them? If we support Wolfgang's "messages" or something else it'd be good to say that, but as is this sentence seems a bit vague. > Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. > > Similarly, in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have more of > an intersessional work program, —beyond open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national/regional meetings— > rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. This could include the development of an ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. I take the point of people who say there's stuff now so the sentence reads off. But what there is now is insufficient. > > Alternatively the main responsibility for intersessional work could be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members plus outsiders, to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF. I would rather we didn't privilege MAGers and make "outsiders" a residual category that'd have to beg for slots. Can't we just say there should be WGs comprising people chosen from the stakeholder communities involved that would do xyz (more detail, make it a real proposal)? > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > About the IGC > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. > > -- > 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 28 14:38:17 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:38:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <94032900-958C-48C4-8C70-2DC7A2D0D184@arin.net> On Jan 27, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > ... > In either case, the number is huge, in excess of allocations to bodies who > have greater neeeds for IP numbers, and hardly allocated on the basis of > need. The allocation was made based on documented need. > I wonder if someone can let us know the correct number allocated or reserved > for US DOD use? It would also be useful to know how the decision on the > allocation was taken. The allocations are all in the WHOIS database, which is public by nature. The US DoD made a request to ARIN for IPv6 allocations. Such requests are covered by NDA because they contain proprietary information, just as every request received from carriers, enterprises, hosting companies, etc. Due to the size of the request, it's safe to assume that there was lots of additional communication and documentation required to show why & how such an allocation was needed. > If the number was simply allocated because it was asked for, that seems a > very naïve decision in an age where claims of information imperialism are > being made. Surely someone in the relevant internet governance area (ARIN?) > would have thought about the policy implications? > > Or if there was simply no choice - US DOD gets what it wants, no questions > asked, questions need to be raised about the independence of internet > governance structures. Allocations are made based on documented need in accordance with the established policy. Policy is determined by the community based on the Policy Development Process, which is documented at: . At present, there is no limit on address allocation size for IPv6, although the community could always adopt one as policy. > > Yes I know, there are plenty of numbers available (they said that with IPv4 > as well). But that's hardly the point. Correct. Conservation is a basic principle of IPv6 allocations. > Can someone enlighten us with the details of this allocation and how it was > made? I hope this explanation helps. ARIN isn't in a position to disclose the application information related to any allocation, regardless of the nature of the applicant. /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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Jan 28 14:55:02 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:55:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: <707D6074-7DFE-484D-A5C9-2532446495CE@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <21A2418F-ED63-4DBB-AA47-522073B1BD22@ciroap.org>,<707D6074-7DFE-484D-A5C9-2532446495CE@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CBB6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I suggest: Jeremy insert Bill's edit's/tweaks Then let's put this to bed/to a consensus call ________________________________________ From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 12:50 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION Hello, I've been absolutely swamped with ICANN work and conf calls the past few days and unable to contribute here. Now looking over the various interventions that have been made, I'm not quite sure what the status is of all the provisions people have supported/opposed/amended. So FWIW just a few additional points on the original. On Jan 27, 2010, at 5:37 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: Here is the final version of our statement for the next open consultation, incorporating the latest comments made on the list. A 48 hour consensus call on this will be made later this week. Between now and then, please suggest only very important changes that would make the difference for you between supporting the statement and opposing it. Many thanks. Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. I think this is a sufficient and not overly aggressive way to deal with the ITU issue. I see posts today calling for bolder opposition to more of an ITU role; why would the above sentence not be enough? One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards governmental stakeholders as it is at present. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent. Personally I could do without calling the distribution 'slanted' inter alia because one of the big issues is lack of government engagement, and this after all is the UN. And despite the numbers, aren't the nongovernmentals pretty able to affect the agenda as is? If MAG is at all like WGIG, I suspect many governmentals are relatively quiet and the energy is elsewhere. So is it necessary and smart to say this when we're asking the governments to renew the IGF? One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that for instance the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. I agree with those who say this reads like sour grapes and is not appropriate for this particular statement's purpose. I'd lose the second sentence. It is perceived that this was partly due to the cancellation of the September MAG meeting, in favour of an open planning session, ahead of the IGF meeting in Sharm el Sheikh. Agree with those who suggest cutting this In this context, we have an observation to make about the proposal that there should be only one MAG meeting in 2010. The fact that a formal decision is yet to be taken on whether the IGF is to be renewed and in what form is not seen by the IGC as a decisive factor against the rotation. However if a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. On this note, we would like to re-propose the adoption of a human rights agenda for the Vilnius meeting, along with the inclusion of a development agenda in Internet governance as a cross cutting theme. As happy as I would be to have human rights and development set as overarching themes, I'd think this should be argued for in a separate, more developed statement, rather than in a meta-assessment of IGF renewal. The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would support outputs of such kinds). Could someone explain to me what we might mean here? What's tangible, if we concede that recommendations, declarations or statements won't fly, and how would the IGF "improve its orientation" toward them? If we support Wolfgang's "messages" or something else it'd be good to say that, but as is this sentence seems a bit vague. Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. Similarly, in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have more of an intersessional work program, —beyond open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national/regional meetings— rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. This could include the development of an ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. I take the point of people who say there's stuff now so the sentence reads off. But what there is now is insufficient. Alternatively the main responsibility for intersessional work could be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members plus outsiders, to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF. I would rather we didn't privilege MAGers and make "outsiders" a residual category that'd have to beg for slots. Can't we just say there should be WGs comprising people chosen from the stakeholder communities involved that would do xyz (more detail, make it a real proposal)? We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. About the IGC The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. -- 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Jan 28 15:20:27 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:20:27 +1100 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD In-Reply-To: <94032900-958C-48C4-8C70-2DC7A2D0D184@arin.net> Message-ID: Thanks John, I appreciate your reply. But for the record, can you confirm exactly how many IP addresses have been allocated and/or reserved for US Dept of Defence? (not all of us can read /16 or /13 and make sense of it). It would be good to know the exact number. Can anyone give me authoritative information on this, as media reports are widely different. Also, am I right that this is the largest allocation made to date? I gather from your comments (and those passed on by McTim earlier) that an application of this size lead to a considerable amount of discussion and internal clarification before an allocation was made. Glad to hear it. But I am still puzzled as to what the documented need would be for such a large allocation. However, as you say > ARIN isn't in a position to disclose the > application information related to any allocation, regardless of the nature > of the applicant Which, while understandable, is a great pity. We do have an international climate where the sometimes "special" relationship of internet governance groups with the US government is viewed with suspicion, and this large allocation without explanation will only fuel those fires. Thanks again for being as open with your reply as you could as ARIN CEO. But of course I remain curious and I am sure others do as well. Ian Peter > From: John Curran > Reply-To: , John Curran > Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:38:17 -0500 > To: Ian Peter > Cc: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" > Subject: Re: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD > > On Jan 27, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> ... >> In either case, the number is huge, in excess of allocations to bodies who >> have greater neeeds for IP numbers, and hardly allocated on the basis of >> need. > > The allocation was made based on documented need. > >> I wonder if someone can let us know the correct number allocated or reserved >> for US DOD use? It would also be useful to know how the decision on the >> allocation was taken. > > The allocations are all in the WHOIS database, which is public by nature. > > The US DoD made a request to ARIN for IPv6 allocations. Such requests are > covered by NDA because they contain proprietary information, just as every > request received from carriers, enterprises, hosting companies, etc. Due > to the size of the request, it's safe to assume that there was lots of > additional communication and documentation required to show why & how > such an allocation was needed. > >> If the number was simply allocated because it was asked for, that seems a >> very naïve decision in an age where claims of information imperialism are >> being made. Surely someone in the relevant internet governance area (ARIN?) >> would have thought about the policy implications? >> > >> Or if there was simply no choice - US DOD gets what it wants, no questions >> asked, questions need to be raised about the independence of internet >> governance structures. > > Allocations are made based on documented need in accordance with the > established policy. Policy is determined by the community based on the > Policy Development Process, which is documented at: > . > > At present, there is no limit on address allocation size for IPv6, > although the community could always adopt one as policy. >> >> Yes I know, there are plenty of numbers available (they said that with IPv4 >> as well). But that's hardly the point. > > Correct. Conservation is a basic principle of IPv6 allocations. > >> Can someone enlighten us with the details of this allocation and how it was >> made? > > I hope this explanation helps. ARIN isn't in a position to disclose the > application information related to any allocation, regardless of the nature > of the applicant. > > /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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Jan 28 16:01:56 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:01:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: 707D6074-7DFE-484D-A5C9-2532446495CE@graduateinstitute.ch Message-ID: Bill, I'm not in denile, the ITU clearly has had designs to capture our audiance since Their planting the WSIS seeds to begin with. The ITU started this process for a reason, and part of that was to harness It. Just skip through the links below: - Per Wolfgang Kleinwächter: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-01/msg00194.html ... This is part of a broader package of post MAG/IGF, post JPA/ICANN and post GAID/UN. What is the role of the IGC in all these processes (including the forthcoming ITU pushed WSIS Forum in May 2010 and the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in October 2010). And what the IGC is doing in other process where Internet Governance becomes an issue (ACTA is just one example)? And how the IGC positioned itself to new processes in the UN General Assembly (with regard to Internet security and governance, pushed by the government of Russia in the 2nd committee)? And what we are doing in cases like Google vs. China? ... - Per Parminder: Internet Governance 2010: Future Of The IGF, Competition Among Institutions By Monika Ermert on 15 January 2010 @ 3:39 pm http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-01/msg00251.html ... ITU - Bigger Role in Governance Wished by Some A year ago, the ITU secretary general was highly critical of the IGF, pointing to deficiencies with resolving the dispute about core internet resources - domain names, IP addresses and the system of central root servers on the domain name system (DNS). This year, the organisation did not call into question the extension of the IGF mandate, but instead in a paper to the UN secretary general for his report on what is called “enhanced cooperation” to ECOSOC recommended itself once more for a bigger role in the internet governance arena. As the organisation is preparing for the 2010 ITU Plenipotentiary Meeting in Veracruz, Mexico (4-22 October) the ambitions while not new deserve a closer look. The plenipotentiary is the main decision-making conference of the ITU, taking place once every four years. The 2006 plenipotentiary in Antalya, Turkey, paved the way for more involvement in internet governance, so the 2010 plenipotentiary might see another round of discussions between member states that want the ITU to do more and those who want it to keep to its original task that is more focused on the classical telecommunications industry. That the ITU has an appetite for additional tasks has been made clear in the summary contained in the ECOSOC report and has already led to discussions between the secretariat and member states, said one ITU expert. “An improved governance framework could be formed within which all countries would have an equal say in internet-related public policy issues and in the management of critical internet resources,” read the summary of ITU comments in the UN secretary general’s report. “An intergovernmental organisation such as the [ITU] … could play a leading role in the creation of such a governance structure.” The ITU ECOSOC report summary lists the management of the cryptographically signed root zone of the domain name system - currently underway under the aegis of ICANN and US company VeriSign - the management of generic top-level domains (gTLDs like .com), and the management of internationalised country-code TLDs (IDN ccTLDs) as issues to be dealt with by an “intergovernmental body.” ITU representatives and consultants in addition have at a recent ITU Council meeting been pushing for the set-up of an alternative registry for next generation internet (IPv6) addresses at the ITU. The plenipotentiary also might talk about a proposal on a “Global Protocol on Cybersecurity and Cybercrime” presented by the chair of the ITU High Level Experts Group (HLEG) on Cybercrime, Norwegian Chief Judge Stein Schjolberg, during the IGF. A convention or a protocol at the UN level on this issue should be a “global proposal for the 2010s,” Schjolberg wrote in the preface to the document. He recommends a “combined initiative” by “organisations such as United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the ITU.” ... - Per Wolfgang Kleinwächter: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-12/msg00265.html ... > suggestion, I would be rather surprised if the ITU were to accept > making it's "forum" an open multistakeholder process rather than a > showpiece for itself, they could have done this already and have > showed no inclination. And It might be risky given the stuff with IGF > etc. But perhaps it'd be a good way to call their bluff and feed into > the Plenipot discussion...? ... --- Per Milton Mueller: IGP http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/11/20/4385849.html ... The bottom line here is that academic and civil society participants in Internet governance need to maintain a critical stance towards both ISOC/ICANN and ITU and remain independent. Both organizations have, potentially, a lot of good to contribute; both can make mistakes and advocate or implement bad policies in an attempt to strengthen themselves. At any rate the real governance battle is not between ICANN and ITU but between the nation-state system and the global, open Internet. ... --- The ITU [Itself]: http://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/10/36.aspx Last paragraph ... Speaking on behalf of the ITU Secretary-General, Malcolm Johnson stated that he will recommend the ITU membership to support the continuation of IGF in its present format, but with some improvements: in particular, fewer side events occurring in parallel with important discussions in the main session. “Why not concentrate on one or two themes for each IGF?” he asked, and suggested that the effectiveness of the organizing structure, including its transparency and accountability, should be addressed. ... ---- 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Jan 28 16:01:53 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:01:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Comcast: Oops! In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CBBD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> FYI - took them long enough! ________________________________________ From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 3:41 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] Comcast: Oops! Begin forwarded message: From: Randall Webmail > Date: January 28, 2010 1:57:43 PM EST To: dave at farber.net, dewayne at warpspeed.com Cc: johnmacsgroup at yahoogroups.com Subject: Comcast: Oops! Comcast: We made 'mistake' in slowing Web traffic to file-sharing site by Kim Hart Comcast CEO Brian Roberts on Wednesday said “it was a mistake” for the company to slow down Internet traffic to file-sharing site BitTorrent. READ MORE http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102970357351&s=9888&e=00197SLUN0OSgWKOaiiEqCCxIvQxqXkAiRtKxpw-q__ZEPllXFKvCAOyPE_DDMrTZwMNV5LemTZmd8vO2ywcgpi3r4L41FE3BUYw7wF6dvtjOI1TtLHeRLuIiEBWvjR8f3cCFUJBLPp5JQPEsMer0OGAz4GNHPR-OorP37DXHZCmW-4DGVs7EPiwTXOWduPXaqlpaEs-z30ONSHJHbOjTBiRuW-wR3v4vg3Cykvivsq7vnVn8_q9mNCrDdHDNwK6jxS http://tinyurl.com/y9euhyp Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] [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 jcurran at arin.net Thu Jan 28 17:26:08 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:26:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 28, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Thanks John, I appreciate your reply. But for the record, can you confirm > exactly how many IP addresses have been allocated and/or reserved for US > Dept of Defence? (not all of us can read /16 or /13 and make sense of it). > It would be good to know the exact number. Can anyone give me authoritative > information on this, as media reports are widely different. Also, am I right > that this is the largest allocation made to date? As already mentioned, the US DoD did qualify for IPv6 address space and that "the justification underwent intense scrutiny". At the present time, if you were to review all of the public files, you would find 14 allocations of IPv6 blocks, each one of which is a /22 in size. Some of these allocations have been made out of larger blocks reserved for this purpose, but the remaining space has not been allocated and will not be issued until justified. The total space allocated to date is .000334% of the IPv6 address space. For translation of CIDR format address notation and corresponding sizes for the various blocks, see > I gather from your comments (and those passed on by McTim earlier) that an > application of this size lead to a considerable amount of discussion and > internal clarification before an allocation was made. Glad to hear it. But I > am still puzzled as to what the documented need would be for such a large > allocation. > > However, as you say > >> ARIN isn't in a position to disclose the >> application information related to any allocation, regardless of the nature >> of the applicant > > Which, while understandable, is a great pity. We do have an international > climate where the sometimes "special" relationship of internet governance > groups with the US government is viewed with suspicion, and this large > allocation without explanation will only fuel those fires. To the extent that there is a "special relationship" between the US DoD and the Internet number resource community, it would have to be characterized by DoD's remarkable support for the founding principles of the Internet, including unwavering commitment to actual needs-based resource usage even to the point of their return of IPv4 address space when possible (which is both scarcer and experiencing significantly demand presently): As noted above, the two /8's IPv4 address blocks returned by the US DoD is nearly 1% of the usable IPv4 address space at time when we are running out and have great need. > Thanks again for being as open with your reply as you could as ARIN CEO. But > of course I remain curious and I am sure others do as well. Such curiosity is quite understandable. The Internet community has set an allocation policy framework based on documented need, and individual organizations want more visible overall but for some reason can't accept having their own plans and architecture being visible for all to see. ;-) The net result is justification materials being provided under NDA for review, and the counterbalance is that any resulting allocations made are all public, both in daily statistic files and in aggregate in the Internet number WHOIS database. I'll be the first to admit it is an imperfect system, but seems quite functional. To the extent that folks have better ideas, please get involved in the ARIN community; there is no cost to participate in Internet number resource policy formation, and we've received praise from even our remote participants about their ability to participate in the discussion productively. /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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jan 28 17:34:55 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 01:34:55 +0300 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD In-Reply-To: References: <94032900-958C-48C4-8C70-2DC7A2D0D184@arin.net> Message-ID: Hi again Ian, On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Thanks John, I appreciate your reply. But for the record, can you confirm > exactly how many IP addresses have been allocated and/or reserved for US > Dept of Defence? The goal of a Public Network Information Databse such as ARIN WHOIS service is so you can find this information yourself. It is John's job to make sure this information is available via WHOIS, but not to give you the actual net ranges. You can do that yourself. > (not all of us can read /16 or /13 and make sense of it). The RIRs have this data available as well. Here is one link: http://www.ripe.net/info/info-services/cidr.pdf > It would be good to know the exact number. Can anyone give me authoritative > information on this ARIN WHOIS can: NetRange: 2608:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - 2608:03FF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF CIDR: 2608:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000/22 as an example. There are others I am sure, for example, H root server has a /48: 2001:0500:0001:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - 2001:0500:0001:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF (I can't believe I've just caved and done this for you) , as media reports are widely different. Also, am I right > that this is the largest allocation made to date? Probably, as the US DoD is the largest holder of IPv4 space, it stands to reason that they would have the same status in IPv6, no?? > > I gather from your comments (and those passed on by McTim earlier) that an > application of this size lead to a considerable amount of discussion and > internal clarification before an allocation was made. Glad to hear it. But I > am still puzzled as to what the documented need would be for such a large > allocation. Then perhaps you should Google a bit: http://ipv6.com/articles/military/Military-and-IPv6.htm http://www.usipv6.com/ppt/IPv6SummitPresentationFinalCaptDixon.pdf http://www.usipv6.com/2003arlington/presents/Marilyn_Kraus.pdf Seriously, you MUST change your mindset when thinking about IPv6, its NOT the number of possible addresses, its the number of subnets. Let's take the above /48 example for instance. A /48 gives you 256 /56 subnets to assign. 256 is the number of IPs in a IPv4 /24, or if you are old school, a Class C network. H root probably only uses a handful of these /56s (maybe only one, and then perhaps only one single address of the entire /56), but that is ok, that is the way it is meant to be! Utilization of IPv6 addresses is NOT MEANT to be done in the same way as in IPv4. APNIC explains it quite well on: http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy/text "The actual usage of addresses within each assignment will be quite low, when compared to IPv4 assignments. In IPv6, "utilization" is only measured in terms of the bits to the left of the /56 boundary. In other words, utilization refers to the assignment of /56s to end sites, and not the number of addresses assigned within individual /56s at those end sites. Throughout this document, the term utilization refers to the allocation of /56s to end sites, and not the number of addresses assigned within individual /56s within those end sites." Your puzzled because you haven't had the IPv6 paradigm shift happen in your head. Yet. Read this blog post for more: http://weblog.chrisgrundemann.com/index.php/2009/how-much-ipv6-is-there/ > > However, as you say > >> ARIN isn't in a position to disclose the >> application information related to any allocation, regardless of the nature >> of the applicant > > Which, while understandable, is a great pity. We do have an international > climate where the sometimes "special" relationship of internet governance > groups with the US government is viewed with suspicion, and this large > allocation without explanation will only fuel those fires. John gave you the explanation: "Allocations are made based on documented need in accordance with the established policy. Policy is determined by the community based on the Policy Development Process, which is documented at: ." Is it not the task of the IGF to put out those fires? This is capacity building, which is the purpose of the IGF, no? Wouldn't an IGF main session on IPv6 sub-netting and architecture be more useful than human rights and a development agenda for IG if we really want to put out these fires? > > Thanks again for being as open with your reply as you could as ARIN CEO. But > of course I remain curious and I am sure others do as well. And thanks for his follow up post, which I have just read after composing this mail. -- 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 Jan 29 01:08:02 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:08:02 +1100 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Well after all of that, my two basic questions remain. I appreciate John Currans hands are tied, and that ARIN is acting in the best interests of the Internet community, but my questions remain. How many IP addresses have been reserved for US military use? (in plain, simple numerics). John only tells me what has been allocated, while mentioning more have been reserved. Its the latter figure I am interested in, and as yet I don't have a denial or correction of the 42,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 figure advanced at royal.pingdom.com/.../the-us-department-of-defense-has-42-million-billion- billion-billion-ipv6-addresses/ Nor do I have any denial that this is the largest allocation or reservation to date. What I do have, following McTims research, is that the justification appears to be a concept called NCW (Network-centric warfare). Would it not be fair, then, to allocate and reserve blocks of the same size for the military of each nation state so that we have a level playing (sic) field for network-centric warfare? Or would we rather create a couple of dominant nations and then aim for a network-centric warfare non proliferation treaty? I remain suspicious that the shoulders of ARIN were lent on not too gently in the reservation of 42,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 addresses (or whatever the figure is). I can't see that the allocation would have been made otherwise. But we may never know. Ian Peter > From: McTim > Reply-To: , McTim > Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 01:34:55 +0300 > To: , Ian Peter > Cc: John Curran > Subject: Re: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD > > Hi again Ian, > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Thanks John, I appreciate your reply. But for the record, can you confirm >> exactly how many IP addresses have been allocated and/or reserved for US >> Dept of Defence? > > The goal of a Public Network Information Databse such as ARIN WHOIS > service is so you can find this information yourself. > > It is John's job to make sure this information is available via WHOIS, > but not to give you the actual net ranges. You can do that yourself. > >> (not all of us can read /16 or /13 and make sense of it). > > The RIRs have this data available as well. Here is one link: > > http://www.ripe.net/info/info-services/cidr.pdf > >> It would be good to know the exact number. Can anyone give me authoritative >> information on this > > ARIN WHOIS can: > > NetRange: 2608:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - > 2608:03FF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF > CIDR: 2608:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000/22 as an example. > > There are others I am sure, for example, H root server has a /48: > > 2001:0500:0001:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - > 2001:0500:0001:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF > > (I can't believe I've just caved and done this for you) > > , as media reports are widely different. Also, am I right >> that this is the largest allocation made to date? > > Probably, as the US DoD is the largest holder of IPv4 space, it stands > to reason that they would have the same status in IPv6, no?? > >> >> I gather from your comments (and those passed on by McTim earlier) that an >> application of this size lead to a considerable amount of discussion and >> internal clarification before an allocation was made. Glad to hear it. But I >> am still puzzled as to what the documented need would be for such a large >> allocation. > > Then perhaps you should Google a bit: > http://ipv6.com/articles/military/Military-and-IPv6.htm > http://www.usipv6.com/ppt/IPv6SummitPresentationFinalCaptDixon.pdf > http://www.usipv6.com/2003arlington/presents/Marilyn_Kraus.pdf > > Seriously, you MUST change your mindset when thinking about IPv6, its > NOT the number of possible addresses, its the number of subnets. > > Let's take the above /48 example for instance. A /48 gives you 256 > /56 subnets to assign. 256 is the number of IPs in a IPv4 /24, or if > you are old school, a Class C network. H root probably only uses a > handful of these /56s (maybe only one, and then perhaps only one > single address of the entire /56), but that is ok, that is the way it > is meant to be! > > Utilization of IPv6 addresses is NOT MEANT to be done in the same way > as in IPv4. APNIC explains it quite well on: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy/text > "The actual usage of addresses within each assignment will be quite > low, when compared to IPv4 assignments. In IPv6, "utilization" is only > measured in terms of the bits to the left of the /56 boundary. In > other words, utilization refers to the assignment of /56s to end > sites, and not the number of addresses assigned within individual /56s > at those end sites. Throughout this document, the term utilization > refers to the allocation of /56s to end sites, and not the number of > addresses assigned within individual /56s within those end sites." > > Your puzzled because you haven't had the IPv6 paradigm shift happen in > your head. Yet. > > Read this blog post for more: > http://weblog.chrisgrundemann.com/index.php/2009/how-much-ipv6-is-there/ > >> >> However, as you say >> >>> ARIN isn't in a position to disclose the >>> application information related to any allocation, regardless of the nature >>> of the applicant >> >> Which, while understandable, is a great pity. We do have an international >> climate where the sometimes "special" relationship of internet governance >> groups with the US government is viewed with suspicion, and this large >> allocation without explanation will only fuel those fires. > > John gave you the explanation: > "Allocations are made based on documented need in accordance with the > established policy. Policy is determined by the community based on > the Policy Development Process, which is documented at: > ." > > Is it not the task of the IGF to put out those fires? This is capacity > building, which is the purpose of the IGF, no? > > Wouldn't an IGF main session on IPv6 sub-netting and architecture be > more useful than human rights and a development agenda for IG if we > really want to put out these fires? > >> >> Thanks again for being as open with your reply as you could as ARIN CEO. But >> of course I remain curious and I am sure others do as well. > > And thanks for his follow up post, which I have just read after > composing this mail. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jan 29 02:46:11 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:46:11 +0300 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One last try... On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Well after all of that, my two basic questions remain. I appreciate John > Currans hands are tied, and that ARIN is acting in the best interests of the > Internet community, but my questions remain. Easy enough to find the answers yourself, but if you really must know, I have special consulting rates for CS ;-) > How many IP addresses have been reserved for US military use? (in plain, > simple numerics). John only tells me what has been allocated, while > mentioning more have been reserved. Reserved might be too strong a word. When a RIR makes an allocation, it uses a "sparse allocation system". You can read more about that here: http://www.ripe.net/docs/ipv6-sparse.html#3 and here: http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/IPv6_Addressing_Plans "Sparse allocation for IPv6 addresses is strongly recommended. If allocated address blocks are not adjacent to each other then when a customer says, "I need more addresses," there is a strong probability that you can grant the request by simply changing the prefix length. This keeps your routing table small and tidy. You get lots and lots of IPv6 addresses, so if you only break them up into a dozen pools you still have plenty with which to do sparse allocation. If you break them up into pools for each of the hundreds or even thousands of POPs that you have and/or create two levels of aggregation (first by POP, second by area), you won't have enough to do effective sparse allocation." In other words, while the larger block is available for the DoD to grow into, it is possible that another network COULD be allocated numbers within that range. This applies to all IPv6 allocations, not just DoD. Its the latter figure I am interested > in, and as yet I don't have a denial or correction of the > 42,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 figure right then, go to the link that John sent and multiply the number of IPs in a /22 times 14. it's not rocket science. The number one gets is at least one order of magnitude smaller than the one above. advanced at > > royal.pingdom.com/.../the-us-department-of-defense-has-42-million-billion- > billion-billion-ipv6-addresses/ > > Nor do I have any denial that this is the largest allocation or reservation > to date. There is no way to search the WHOIS for the "largest block" in a Database. Not for the public at least. The RIRs may have hostmaster tools that would allow this. you will have to ask them via hostmaster at . As I said before, it seems likely that the worlds largest IPv4 holder would also be the largest IPv6 holder. > > What I do have, following McTims research, is that the justification appears > to be a concept called NCW (Network-centric warfare). Would it not be fair, > then, to allocate and reserve blocks of the same size for the military of > each nation state so that we have a level playing (sic) field for > network-centric warfare? Hmmm, on the one hand you are bitterly complaining about what you perceive as waste of Ipv6, but at the same time are advocating wasting ~200 times that? What is "fair" is that organizations get the IPv6 space they need. No more or less. If the military of say Belgium (an example of a a small country), can only justify a /32, why on earth would you g9ve them 14 /22s. We are meant to be wasteful of IPv6 space, but not profligately so. If you want someone to blame for what you obviously see as a fiasco, blame the IETF for IPv6 addressing architecture, not the RIRs or their members/users of IP space. That would be unfair!! Or would we rather create a couple of dominant > nations and then aim for a network-centric warfare non proliferation treaty? You are conflating two things you should not in addition to making the mistake that 2 nations are unequal in terms of NCW because they have different amounts of IPv6 space. If Belgium can do network-centric warfare with a /32, then isn't there a level playing field? > > I remain suspicious that the shoulders of ARIN were lent on not too gently > in the reservation of  42,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 > addresses (or whatever the figure is). I can't see that the allocation would > have been made otherwise. And you'll probably write a blog post about it, or IGP will, or someone without a clue will, and this will only serve to feed the fires you spoke about earlier. Let's put out these fires with facts and knowledge instead. Perhaps the IGC would like to sponsor an IGF workshop on the scale of IPv6 and why thinking in terms of numbers of addresses is misleading? Perhaps you could just accept the fact that sparse allocation combined with 64 bits for interface IDs combined with HD ratios (and not percentages of IPs in use) for utilization measurement combined with Ipv6 subnetting means that only a small fraction of the possible 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,770,000,000 Ipv6 addresses will ever be used. As Chris Gunderman says at http://weblog.chrisgrundemann.com/index.php/2009/address_space-mac_v_ip/ "Even assuming over 4,000 hosts per segment as an average, the utilization would stand at: 0.0000000000000222044605%" That's the way it was designed. Get used to it, or advocate for change to the IETF. > > But we may never know. Ah, but we DO know that allocations are made based upon justified need. I sent you the presentations because they show years of work inside DoD to prepare and plan for IPv6 deployment. I can't imagine what a headache it would be to gather all of this information on all of the networks that DoD is responsible for administering. No wonder it took a year to sort out! -- 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 Fri Jan 29 02:51:12 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:51:12 +0800 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES or NO Message-ID: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> Please reply YES if you agree that the statement below should be put forward by the IGC for the next IGF open consultation meeting. Please reply NO if you do not agree. Please do not suggest further changes, unless they are typographical or grammatical. Responses will be received for 48 hours from the time of this message, following which Ginger and I will assess whether a rough consensus exists. That decision will be subject to appeal. Thank you! Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings. The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. About the IGC The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. -- 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 Jan 29 03:40:38 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:10:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond In-Reply-To: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B629F06.2020900@itforchange.net> Any comment in an active political process only has meaning within specific context in which it is presented... the following part of the statement, "The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings." therefore, to me, just means that we look to the new experiment of no MAG meetings post feb, or in subsequent years, perhaps even ever, with hopeful anticipation.... I think that is a strange view to project for a group which put in so much effort in trying to shape IGF as a purposeful body in the global Internet policies landscape. Even otherwise the statement is too general and is able to make no specific point at all in any of the substantive issues that face the open consultations - review of IGF at Sharm - Review of IGF in general, structural changes etc (time to catch the ear of gov reps who will be there and are going to do the bulk of the work from now on) (and if we do make a comment as the above quoted, we are completely off what we have always held and been trying to take forward) - Agenda for IGF, Vilinius (remember, as per present indications it will be decided in Feb itself) Our statements do always have general points, but still attempt to make 2-3 clear points specific to the issues at hand, which alone get really noticed. We need to have some such points in the present statement too As to why I had not contributed earlier, I think I kept doing my best regarding one of the most important issues that was at hand, and could only do that many postings. Also, a good part of substantive stuff had got removed in the last day or two. So, it is a NO. Very, unfortunate, that I have to say so. Parminder Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Please reply YES if you agree that the statement below should be put > forward by the IGC for the next IGF open consultation meeting. Please > reply NO if you do not agree. Please do not suggest further changes, > unless they are typographical or grammatical. Responses will be > received for 48 hours from the time of this message, following which > Ginger and I will assess whether a rough consensus exists. That > decision will be subject to appeal. Thank you! > > *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting > of the IGF* > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the > continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a > multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public > policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended > for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe > should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of > incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an > institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally > convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a > Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of > Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to > the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the > composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should > be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also > believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the > selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to > be made more transparent. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the > participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the > substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might > not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the > IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take > place, care must be taken that this does not result in the > programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. > The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the > present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the > preparation of IGF meetings. > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards > the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to > "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements > (though many of our members would also support outputs of these > stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be > taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external > institutions through appropriate mechanisms. > > Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's > intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open > consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely > connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should > be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and > meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would > require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and > meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps > multi-stakeholder composition. > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, > which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from > civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage > with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > *About the IGC* > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide > spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively > engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up > to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is > to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance > policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers > to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about > our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org > . > > -- > > *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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Jan 29 04:17:00 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:17:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES or NO In-Reply-To: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi On Jan 29, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Please reply YES if you agree that the statement below should be put forward by the IGC for the next IGF open consultation meeting. Thanks Jeremy for taking on board the comments and edits people have suggested. I'd be a yes, but I wonder if you really need to close editing and call consensus now; why not give it a day for final tweaks, since the focus in the first instance is a statement for the consultation rather than an input to the synthesis paper? If it's still possible: I wish you'd not deleted mention of the working group sentence from the para on intersessional activities. Why not just replace "The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members plus outsiders" with "The IGF could also organize thematic working groups..." and leave the precise modalities of participation and input TBD? To me at least, it would have been nice to keep the idea on the table in some form... Also I wonder if there isn't a way to address this, On Jan 29, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Parminder wrote: > "The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings." > > therefore, to me, just means that we look to the new experiment of no MAG meetings post feb, or in subsequent years, perhaps even ever, with hopeful anticipation.... I think that is a strange view to project for a group which put in so much effort in trying to shape IGF as a purposeful body in the global Internet policies landscape. Parminder is there a sentence or two on what such contributions might comprise and how to ensure a more purposeful agenda that would satisfy your concerns? Personally I don't see that the text implies we look forward to no MAG. Elsewhere we say that representation in the MAG should be more balanced, mention uncertainty about its rotation while renewal is in the air, and refer to it as part of the intersessional work we think could be built out. But you'd like a more declarative 'we want a MAG' sentence? 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jan 29 04:25:32 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:25:32 +0300 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES In-Reply-To: References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> Message-ID: +1 to all of what Bill said. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:17 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Jan 29, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> Please reply YES if you agree that the statement below should be put forward by the IGC for the next IGF open consultation meeting. > > Thanks Jeremy for taking on board the comments and edits people have suggested.  I'd be a yes, but I wonder if you really need to close editing and call consensus now; why not give it a day for final tweaks, since the focus in the first instance is a statement for the consultation rather than an input to the synthesis paper? > > If it's still possible: I wish you'd not deleted mention of the working group sentence from the para on intersessional activities.  Why not just replace "The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members plus outsiders" with "The IGF could also organize thematic working groups..." and leave the precise modalities of participation and input TBD?  To me at least, it would have been nice to keep the idea on the table in some form... > > Also I wonder if there isn't a way to address this, > > On Jan 29, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Parminder wrote: > >> "The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings." >> >> therefore, to me, just means that we look to the new experiment of no MAG meetings post feb, or in subsequent years, perhaps even ever, with hopeful anticipation.... I think that is a strange view to project for a group  which put in so much effort in trying to shape IGF as a purposeful body in the global Internet policies landscape. > > Parminder is there a sentence or two on what such contributions might comprise and how to ensure a more purposeful agenda that would satisfy your concerns?  Personally I don't see that the text implies we look forward to no MAG.  Elsewhere we say that representation in the MAG should be more balanced, mention uncertainty about its rotation while renewal is in the air, and refer to it as part of the intersessional work we think could be built out.  But you'd like a more declarative 'we want a MAG' sentence? > > 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 -- 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 Fri Jan 29 04:31:40 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:31:40 +0800 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES or NO In-Reply-To: References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <14D99C32-032B-4A56-9415-75F8563BBA84@ciroap.org> On 29/01/2010, at 5:17 PM, William Drake wrote: > If it's still possible: I wish you'd not deleted mention of the working group sentence from the para on intersessional activities. Why not just replace "The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members plus outsiders" with "The IGF could also organize thematic working groups..." and leave the precise modalities of participation and input TBD? To me at least, it would have been nice to keep the idea on the table in some form... I'm not going to withdraw the consensus call, but people may vote: YES + thematic working groups YES NO "YES + thematic working groups" means the statement that I posted already, plus this additional sentence as a penultimate paragraph: "The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF." I had taken this out because it met with objection. -- 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Jan 29 04:32:40 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:32:40 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Jeremy thanks. Here is my YES. I would - like Bill - keep the idea of (interessional) thematic meetings. BTW (but this goes beyond the statement and should not delay the delivery of this statement on February, 9, 2010) we qualify in this statement the IGF as an "institution". My question is whether this is correct and this is what we want to have. In Tunis we gave an interpretation that the IGF is a "process" with "one highlight per year" (the annual IGF) but a lot of work in between (which is now the case with national and regional IGFs and in the future possibly with more structured IGF Dynamic Coalition activities, thematic meetings, open consultations etc.). The undeerstanding of "process" instead of "institution" helped us to avoid the risk that the IGF becomes victim of a "burocratization" which normally (and unavidably) comes with the launch of an "institutuion". The "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation Mechanism" avoided such a burocratization so far. I understand (and agree) that flexibility (the "process") works only if there is a certain stability (a minimum of "institution") at the ground. However lets be very careful in using words. One option could be also to speak about the IGF Network or the IGF Mechanism oran "enhanced process"which would make clear that we do not want to have a new intergovernmental United Nations for the Internet (with some non-governmental stakeholders in an advisory capacity). Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Gesendet: Fr 29.01.2010 08:51 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES or NO Please reply YES if you agree that the statement below should be put forward by the IGC for the next IGF open consultation meeting. Please reply NO if you do not agree. Please do not suggest further changes, unless they are typographical or grammatical. Responses will be received for 48 hours from the time of this message, following which Ginger and I will assess whether a rough consensus exists. That decision will be subject to appeal. Thank you! Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings. The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. About the IGC The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org . -- 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Jan 29 04:45:30 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:45:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD In-Reply-To: References: <94032900-958C-48C4-8C70-2DC7A2D0D184@arin.net> Message-ID: McTim On Jan 28, 2010, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: [snip] All very interesting, albeit not entirely trainable sans tech training > Wouldn't an IGF main session on IPv6 sub-netting and architecture be > more useful than human rights and a development agenda for IG if we > really want to put out these fires? If by useful you mean inducing hundreds of people to simultaneously get up for a coffee break or try to check their mail, sure. Otherwise, no. Not the purpose of an IGF main session. What would be useful though would be for there to be a regularized stream of properly calibrated techie tutorial sessions available alongside the workshops, open forums, etc for people who want to know more. I've never understood why ISOC or the various administrative bodies don't do this. Personally, I don't know beans about IPv6 sub-netting, but would like to. If someone who actually knows how to teach folks who aren't trained in computer science or electrical engineering were to offer a nice walk through, I'd show up, and I doubt I'm alone. Beyond network basics, I really wish ICANN offered a regularized set of sessions that walk through its processes and the issues it deals with in a bit of depth. An hour and half open forum in which one gets a quick surface skim of some current developments just doesn't fill the need, especially for anyone who might be contemplating getting involved for the first time. ICANN's sink or swim, just figure it out approach to newbie outreach is a total, intergalactic disaster with a wide range of negative effects. 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 Fri Jan 29 05:14:06 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:14:06 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <70FD511F-C8D9-4E7B-9113-B0E9047C94FB@graduateinstitute.ch> Wolfgang is right, it's a process not an institution. So does that make the options YES + thematic working groups + process? YES NO or YES + thematic working groups + process? YES + thematic working groups YES + process? YES NO or... Getting a bit complex, why not just hold off for a day on the consensus call and get this right? I still think we should find a way to accommodate Parminder's concerns if possible. BD On Jan 29, 2010, at 10:32 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Jeremy > > thanks. Here is my YES. I would - like Bill - keep the idea of (interessional) thematic meetings. > > BTW (but this goes beyond the statement and should not delay the delivery of this statement on February, 9, 2010) we qualify in this statement the IGF as an "institution". My question is whether this is correct and this is what we want to have. In Tunis we gave an interpretation that the IGF is a "process" with "one highlight per year" (the annual IGF) but a lot of work in between (which is now the case with national and regional IGFs and in the future possibly with more structured IGF Dynamic Coalition activities, thematic meetings, open consultations etc.). The undeerstanding of "process" instead of "institution" helped us to avoid the risk that the IGF becomes victim of a "burocratization" which normally (and unavidably) comes with the launch of an "institutuion". The "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation Mechanism" avoided such a burocratization so far. I understand (and agree) that flexibility (the "process") works only if there is a certain stability (a minimum of "institution") at the ground. However lets be very careful in using words. One option could be also to speak about the IGF Network or the IGF Mechanism oran "enhanced process"which would make clear that we do not want to have a new intergovernmental United Nations for the Internet (with some non-governmental stakeholders in an advisory capacity). > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] > Gesendet: Fr 29.01.2010 08:51 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES or NO > > > Please reply YES if you agree that the statement below should be put forward by the IGC for the next IGF open consultation meeting. Please reply NO if you do not agree. Please do not suggest further changes, unless they are typographical or grammatical. Responses will be received for 48 hours from the time of this message, following which Ginger and I will assess whether a rough consensus exists. That decision will be subject to appeal. Thank you! > > Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings. > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. > > Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > About the IGC > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org . > > -- > 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Jan 29 05:15:35 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:15:35 +0800 Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES In-Reply-To: <70FD511F-C8D9-4E7B-9113-B0E9047C94FB@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <70FD511F-C8D9-4E7B-9113-B0E9047C94FB@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: On 29/01/2010, at 6:14 PM, William Drake wrote: > Wolfgang is right, it's a process not an institution. > > So does that make the options > > YES + thematic working groups + process? > YES > NO No, it means these points should have been made earlier. :-P I don't mean to be flippant or disrespectful to you or Wolfgang, but there is an underlying serious point which is that we have to draw the line somewhere, and I'm drawing the line at YES + thematic working groups, YES, and NO. Sorry. :-) -- 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Jan 29 05:28:33 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:28:33 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <70FD511F-C8D9-4E7B-9113-B0E9047C94FB@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B44@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Jeremy: No, it means these points should have been made earlier. :-P Wolfgang: I understand fully, Jeremy, that you are frustrated with all the last minute comments and you have to draw a line. However if there is flexibility to avoid in the last muinute a mistake we should try to avoid a mistake. Again I think the "institutions vs. process" issue is an important strategic one and we should be clear on the side of the "enhanced process". You will have difficulties to "innovate" within an institutuion as soon as it exists. So lets wait for some other comments and than you have all the trust of the community to make a wise and forward looking decision. Good Luck 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 29 05:36:35 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:06:35 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond In-Reply-To: References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <70FD511F-C8D9-4E7B-9113-B0E9047C94FB@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4B62BA33.6070908@itforchange.net> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 29/01/2010, at 6:14 PM, William Drake wrote: > > >> Wolfgang is right, it's a process not an institution. >> >> So does that make the options >> >> YES + thematic working groups + process? >> YES >> NO >> > > No, it means these points should have been made earlier. :-P > > I don't mean to be flippant or disrespectful to you or Wolfgang, but there is an underlying serious point which is that we have to draw the line somewhere, and I'm drawing the line at YES + thematic working groups, YES, and NO. Sorry. :-) > Jeremy, Since you have in any case opened the field I think it will be best to redo the statement a bit, without adding anything controversial. Getting a good statement may be a more important imperative. And we do still have time. We have closed statements later than this previously. I suggest - you remove the part on 'innovative contributions' reg MAG, since there was always enough controversy regarding it for it not to be there in first place.... and add, two substantive themes - development agenda and HR - for IGF Vilnius.... these are our long standing demands.... and what is the point not to suggest even broad areas for themes, when the present meeting will decide the themes, and a good part of the IGF is about these key themes for each IGF. I will suggest we also propose 'Network Neutrality or Open Internet' as a theme (good work was done on this theme by IGC co-sponsored workshop in IGF Sharm on this issue, and this work should be taken forward in a main session now) (BTW, I would not suggest we rename IGF as a process. Let us keep it as what WSIS describes it - a forum, if someone has a problem with the term institution. Though i find it very strange those who reject intergov governance systems/ bodies in IG space and ask for multistakeholder ones also are the ones who keep weakening the structures and possibilities of one MS structure that is emerging -- this riddle has been beyond me, but lets keep it for some other time ) 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 Fri Jan 29 05:36:48 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:36:48 +0800 Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES In-Reply-To: References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <70FD511F-C8D9-4E7B-9113-B0E9047C94FB@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <92970008-B953-4AD4-A567-718B69C9E2DE@ciroap.org> On 29/01/2010, at 6:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 29/01/2010, at 6:14 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> Wolfgang is right, it's a process not an institution. Also, taking off my coordinator hat (and replying in a separate post for that reason), I don't agree. "Institutions [simply] consist of cognitive, normative and regulative structures and activities that provide stability and meaning to social behaviour" (Scott, W. (1995) Institutions and Organisations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage). I realise that the word itself may connote something different to diplomats than it does in academia, but I would much rather call a spade a spade. Civil society has already lost ground by accepting "dynamic coalitions" in place of "working groups", a "MAG" instead of a "bureau" and so on. These aren't simply euphamisms. They are disempowered shadows of what the IGF really needs. And the IGF, honestly, needs to be an institution in the fullest sense if it is to be useful in promoting civil society's interests in Internet public policy development. PS. My personal disagreement with the proposition has nothing to do with my decision not to rescind the consensus call. We can, by all means, refer to the IGF as a "process" rather than an "institution" in a future statement if there is consensus on that. PPS. Of course, I'm disappointed that we couldn't satisfy Parminder too. As I'm sure he well knows, nobody would have been more pleased than I if we had been able to reach consensus on a stronger statement. But the perfect is the enemy of the good, if you'll excuse the cliche. -- 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 Jan 29 05:43:32 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:13:32 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond In-Reply-To: References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <70FD511F-C8D9-4E7B-9113-B0E9047C94FB@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4B62BBD4.7070401@itforchange.net> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 29/01/2010, at 6:14 PM, William Drake wrote: > > >> Wolfgang is right, it's a process not an institution. >> >> So does that make the options >> >> YES + thematic working groups + process? >> YES >> NO >> > > No, it means these points should have been made earlier. :-P > Jeremy, I have only suggested points that have been made earlier in the present process , except for the NN theme. There have been earlier IGC statements that NN should be taken up as an issue at the IGF, including as a main theme. But if you prefer you can take a separate vote on this specific issue, which I agree was not mentioned earlier in the present process. But if you at all accept our request to do some changes to the statement, why not wait 2 days or so for comments also on the 'NN or open Internet' theme as one of the main IGF themes, before we close it. Parminder > I don't mean to be flippant or disrespectful to you or Wolfgang, but there is an underlying serious point which is that we have to draw the line somewhere, and I'm drawing the line at YES + thematic working groups, YES, and NO. Sorry. :-) > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 29 05:43:20 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:43:20 +0800 Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond In-Reply-To: <4B62BA33.6070908@itforchange.net> References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <70FD511F-C8D9-4E7B-9113-B0E9047C94FB@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B62BA33.6070908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <422EEF78-9478-4383-B29F-0D98CD81A115@ciroap.org> On 29/01/2010, at 6:36 PM, Parminder wrote: > Since you have in any case opened the field I think it will be best to redo the statement a bit, without adding anything controversial. Getting a good statement may be a more important imperative. And we do still have time. We have closed statements later than this previously. > > I suggest - you remove the part on 'innovative contributions' reg MAG, since there was always enough controversy regarding it for it not to be there in first place.... Like others, I cannot fathom how this suggests support for the disbandment of the MAG. For now I am going to leave the consensus call open. Once it closes Ginger and I can post any final suggested changes to the list for comment to see if anyone objects. > and add, two substantive themes - development agenda and HR - for IGF Vilnius.... these are our long standing demands.... Others have pointed out that these belong in a separate statement, and I agree. I don't think we need to draft a long, formal statement and make a consensus call on it, since we already have a long-standing consensus to promote these themes. But let's start a separate thread. -- 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 Jan 29 05:47:07 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:47:07 +0800 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <4B62BA33.6070908@itforchange.net> References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <70FD511F-C8D9-4E7B-9113-B0E9047C94FB@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B62BA33.6070908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 29/01/2010, at 6:36 PM, Parminder wrote: > and add, two substantive themes - development agenda and HR - for IGF Vilnius.... these are our long standing demands.... and what is the point not to suggest even broad areas for themes, when the present meeting will decide the themes, and a good part of the IGF is about these key themes for each IGF. > > I will suggest we also propose 'Network Neutrality or Open Internet' as a theme (good work was done on this theme by IGC co-sponsored workshop in IGF Sharm on this issue, and this work should be taken forward in a main session now) Ginger will be at the open consultation meeting and can deliver an oral statement on themes for the Vilnius meeting, separately to our statement looking back at Sharm el Sheikh. It is entirely appropriate to split up our statements like this, and there is precedent for it. So, let's get to work on such a statement now. I don't think it needs to be very long, and indeed we could just put forward some bullet points for Ginger to elaborate upon on the day. So far we have on the table the following substantive themes: * Human rights * Development agenda * Network neutrality/Open Internet Comments, please, particularly on the last of these which Parminder has just introduced? -- 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Jan 29 05:47:47 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:17:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello, On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > > Bill, > > Per Wolfgang Kleinwächter: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-12/msg00265.html > > This message includes a previous message dated December 23 from Wolfgang Kleinwachter wherein he said > > so far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the hand of the ITU and other > > IGOs, having the lead position in the Action Lines. The WSIS Forum > > could be further "multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to > > organoze the meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - could > > go to a MAG like group. I wonder why the IGC and all the important organizations concerned with the IGF have not called for impovements to the structure of WSIS and the need for a redefinition of the constitution of WSIS. IGC's statement on the Review of IGF and all further inputs to the review process may emphasize this as an important point, perhaps beginning with the statement in process. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Jan 29 05:52:41 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:22:41 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond In-Reply-To: <422EEF78-9478-4383-B29F-0D98CD81A115@ciroap.org> References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <70FD511F-C8D9-4E7B-9113-B0E9047C94FB@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B62BA33.6070908@itforchange.net> <422EEF78-9478-4383-B29F-0D98CD81A115@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B62BDF9.2080101@itforchange.net> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 29/01/2010, at 6:36 PM, Parminder wrote: > >> Since you have in any case opened the field I think it will be best >> to redo the statement a bit, without adding anything controversial. >> Getting a good statement may be a more important imperative. And we >> do still have time. We have closed statements later than this previously. >> >> I suggest - you remove the part on 'innovative contributions' reg >> MAG, since there was always enough controversy regarding it for it >> not to be there in first place.... > > Like others, I cannot fathom how this suggests support for the > disbandment of the MAG. Because that is the spirit and background in which those who suggested that sentence made it, and that is the context in which the issue will be on the table at the open consultations (not disbanding, which is an extreme term, but experimenting towards doing with less or none of MAG, which is the way it was described). and also significantly, in the discussion I, and I understand at least one more person, were opposing this stream of logic... So it should not have gone into the statement in the first place. (Only two people were arguing for it.) And if your explanation is that this is a harmless general statement, that no one can object to, why you did not as well pick some 'harmless' sentence form my numerous emails - that no one can object to - somethign like 'we should seek to strengthen rather than weaken the capacity of the IGF and the MAG system towards purposeful activity' which in the context of the present issue on the table would get read as, we are not for doing away with post Feb MAG meetings.... Parminder > For now I am going to leave the consensus call open. Once it closes > Ginger and I can post any final suggested changes to the list for > comment to see if anyone objects. > >> and add, two substantive themes - development agenda and HR - for IGF >> Vilnius.... these are our long standing demands.... > > Others have pointed out that these belong in a separate statement, and > I agree. I don't think we need to draft a long, formal statement and > make a consensus call on it, since we already have a long-standing > consensus to promote these themes. But let's start a separate thread. > > -- > > *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 ceo at bnnrc.net Fri Jan 29 05:56:59 2010 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:56:59 +0600 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES or NO References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> Message-ID: From Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication(BNNRC) Big YES With solidarity, Bazlu _______________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication(BNNRC) & Member, Strategy Council UN-Global Alliance for ICT and Development (UN GAID) House: 13/1, Road:2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net, bnnrc at bd.drik.net www.bnnrc.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeremy Malcolm To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 1:51 PM Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES or NO Please reply YES if you agree that the statement below should be put forward by the IGC for the next IGF open consultation meeting. Please reply NO if you do not agree. Please do not suggest further changes, unless they are typographical or grammatical. Responses will be received for 48 hours from the time of this message, following which Ginger and I will assess whether a rough consensus exists. That decision will be subject to appeal. Thank you! Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings. The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. About the IGC The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 29 06:05:33 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:35:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES In-Reply-To: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hello Jeremy On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Please reply YES if you agree that the statement below should be put > forward by the IGC for the next IGF open consultation meeting. Please reply > NO if you do not agree. Please do not suggest further changes, unless they > are typographical or grammatical. Responses will be received for 48 hours > from the time of this message, following which Ginger and I will assess > whether a rough consensus exists. That decision will be subject to appeal. > Thank you! > > *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of > the IGF* > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of > the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the > discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, > the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of > adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the > IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an > institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by > the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under > contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs > (UNDESA). > 'Secretariat under contract with UNDESA' is very specific. The suggestion that IGF continues with a UN mandate with greater independence could be a broader suggestion leaving it open for various possible ways of achieving that. > We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN > body such as the ITU. > You have not taken into account some of the comments about making this statement emphatic. Why is this statement still light and gentle? Is it difficult for you to make this statement any stronger for any reason? One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition > of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly > divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the > stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, > and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. > What is missing is a bit of praise for the Secreatariat and the MAG for all that they have done. In the absence of positive comments, if the IGC merely points out what is missing ( or what is wrong with the working of the MAG) and somewhere else express doubts about the extension of the mandate, the net effect would be negative. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of > stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF > meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year > > (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not > preclude that). > Why is there even a reference to the uncertainty here? > If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not > result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in > stone. > What is the reason for this apprehension - that the program for the Vilinius meeting would permanently be set in stone? > The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present > "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF > meetings. > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the > development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" > rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of > our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever > form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are > transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate > mechanisms. > > Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's > intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open > consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely > connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a > better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to > present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to > set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open > membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > Can we also make a beginning here on a suggestion to improve the constitution of the WSIS? I have quoted form an earlier message with comments separately. > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which > reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil > society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and > participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > *About the IGC* > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide > spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in > internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World > Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global > public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now > comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have > subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at > http://www.igcaucus.org. > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer > rights around the world. > *http://www.consumersinternational.org/50* > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 29 06:18:57 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:18:57 +0800 Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond In-Reply-To: <4B62BDF9.2080101@itforchange.net> References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <70FD511F-C8D9-4E7B-9113-B0E9047C94FB@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B62BA33.6070908@itforchange.net> <422EEF78-9478-4383-B29F-0D98CD81A115@ciroap.org> <4B62BDF9.2080101@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 29/01/2010, at 6:52 PM, Parminder wrote: >>> I suggest - you remove the part on 'innovative contributions' reg MAG, since there was always enough controversy regarding it for it not to be there in first place.... >> >> Like others, I cannot fathom how this suggests support for the disbandment of the MAG. > Because that is the spirit and background in which those who suggested that sentence made it Would it make a difference to your "NO" vote to remove it? If so, then I ask Wolfgang, McTim and Bill, how firmly wedded to it are you - would you agree to its removal for Parminder's sake? If so on both counts, then I think we can remove it, but without disrupting the consensus call in progress. -- 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 Jan 29 06:23:40 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:23:40 +0800 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES or NO In-Reply-To: References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 29/01/2010, at 7:05 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > You have not taken into account some of the comments about making this statement emphatic. Why is this statement still light and gentle? Is it difficult for you to make this statement any stronger for any reason? Whilst I had no problem with them personally, your more emphatic changes were specifically objected to on the list, and I made a judgment that to introduce them would bring the group further from consensus rather than closer to it. > What is missing is a bit of praise for the Secreatariat and the MAG for all that they have done. In the absence of positive comments, if the IGC merely points out what is missing ( or what is wrong with the working of the MAG) and somewhere else express doubts about the extension of the mandate, the net effect would be negative. For the future, please post such remarks earlier in the process. :-) For now we are seeking a YES or a NO. The same applies to the other suggestions in your email, such as introducing commentary on WSIS. Even so, thanks for participating. :-) -- 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 Jan 29 06:49:57 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:19:57 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond In-Reply-To: References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <70FD511F-C8D9-4E7B-9113-B0E9047C94FB@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B62BA33.6070908@itforchange.net> <422EEF78-9478-4383-B29F-0D98CD81A115@ciroap.org> <4B62BDF9.2080101@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B62CB65.1060305@itforchange.net> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 29/01/2010, at 6:52 PM, Parminder wrote: > >>>> I suggest - you remove the part on 'innovative contributions' reg >>>> MAG, since there was always enough controversy regarding it for it >>>> not to be there in first place.... >>> >>> Like others, I cannot fathom how this suggests support for the >>> disbandment of the MAG. >> Because that is the spirit and background in which those who >> suggested that sentence made it > > Would it make a difference to your "NO" vote to remove it? I can go with the statement if this sentence is removed, and as suggested by Bill the part on intersessional working groups is added, and we work on a separate short statement for theme suggestions for IGF 5. Thanks for your kind consideration. parminder > If so, then I ask Wolfgang, McTim and Bill, how firmly wedded to it > are you - would you agree to its removal for Parminder's sake? If so > on both counts, then I think we can remove it, but without disrupting > the consensus call in progress. > > -- > > *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 Jan 29 06:55:06 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:55:06 +0800 Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond In-Reply-To: <4B62CB65.1060305@itforchange.net> References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <70FD511F-C8D9-4E7B-9113-B0E9047C94FB@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B62BA33.6070908@itforchange.net> <422EEF78-9478-4383-B29F-0D98CD81A115@ciroap.org> <4B62BDF9.2080101@itforchange.net> <4B62CB65.1060305@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <71992E4B-7660-4F3A-858D-0C4ABC41421A@ciroap.org> On 29/01/2010, at 7:49 PM, Parminder wrote: >> Would it make a difference to your "NO" vote to remove it? > I can go with the statement if this sentence is removed, and as suggested by Bill the part on intersessional working groups is added, and we work on a separate short statement for theme suggestions for IGF 5. Thanks for your kind consideration. parminder Thanks Parminder, that is good news. I feel confident that Wolfgang, McTim and Bill will go along with this. Now, we need more votes... -- 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 gpaque at gmail.com Fri Jan 29 07:01:24 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:31:24 -0430 Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond In-Reply-To: <71992E4B-7660-4F3A-858D-0C4ABC41421A@ciroap.org> References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <70FD511F-C8D9-4E7B-9113-B0E9047C94FB@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B62BA33.6070908@itforchange.net> <422EEF78-9478-4383-B29F-0D98CD81A115@ciroap.org> <4B62BDF9.2080101@itforchange.net> <4B62CB65.1060305@itforchange.net> <71992E4B-7660-4F3A-858D-0C4ABC41421A@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B62CE14.6060903@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 jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Jan 29 07:03:03 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:03:03 +0800 Subject: [governance] [Re-post] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES + thematic working groups, YES or NO Message-ID: <5FB35172-3919-467F-A33D-0A1C80DFF38F@ciroap.org> Reposted as previously, with minor changes as follows: * one sentence struck out (or in double square brackets if your mail client does not show striking out) * one added paragraph underlined (or in single square brackets if your mail client does not show underlining) Please vote: YES + thematic working groups to accept the statement as shown here YES to accept the statement without underlined passage NO to reject the statement Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings.]] The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF.] We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. About the IGC The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. -- 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 Jan 29 07:19:45 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:49:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Re-post] Consensus call on IGC statement: please In-Reply-To: <5FB35172-3919-467F-A33D-0A1C80DFF38F@ciroap.org> References: <5FB35172-3919-467F-A33D-0A1C80DFF38F@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B62D261.2000806@itforchange.net> Jeremy, While appreciate your effort to take this forward in this manner, this is to point to a technical issue... From my experience, I think most people here would just say, yes, even if when they agree to the whole lot, then say yes + thematic working groups. This would let to the erroneous impression that they do not support thematic groups... Since many agreed immediately to Bill's proposal of this change, I do think that the general feeing in the group is for keeping this in. I suggest you just put it in the statement, and give the option to people to vote yes, or yes, but minus WGs.... Sorry, if this sounds bothersome. Just trying to help :) parminder . JJeremy Malcolm wrote: > Reposted as previously, with minor changes as follows: > > * one sentence struck out (or in double square brackets if your mail > client does not show striking out) > > * one added paragraph underlined (or in single square brackets if your > mail client does not show underlining) > > Please vote: > > *YES + thematic working groups *to accept the statement as shown here > *YES* to accept the statement without underlined passage > *NO* to reject the statement > > *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting > of the IGF* > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the > continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a > multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public > policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended > for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe > should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of > incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an > institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally > convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a > Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of > Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to > the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the > composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should > be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also > believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the > selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to > be made more transparent. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the > participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the > substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might > not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the > IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take > place, care must be taken that this does not result in the > programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. > [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the > present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the > preparation of IGF meetings.]] > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards > the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to > "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements > (though many of our members would also support outputs of these > stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be > taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external > institutions through appropriate mechanisms. > > Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's > intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open > consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely > connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should > be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and > meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would > require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and > meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps > multi-stakeholder composition. > > [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop > background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes > selected to be taken up by the IGF.] > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, > which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from > civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage > with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > *About the IGC* > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide > spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively > engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up > to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is > to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance > policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers > to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about > our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org > . > > -- > > *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 jcurran at arin.net Fri Jan 29 07:26:07 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:26:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5ADF0E29-48E5-41A7-B705-2EB6CFF95594@arin.net> On Jan 29, 2010, at 1:08 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > ... > Would it not be fair, then, to allocate and reserve blocks of the same size > for the military of each nation state so that we have a level playing (sic) > field for network-centric warfare? Or would we rather create a couple of dominant > nations and then aim for a network-centric warfare non proliferation treaty? At present, the Internet number resource allocation framework is needs-based. This framework was established decades ago by the IETF and is documented as a Best Practice in RFC 2050. This means that Internet numbering policy is generally free of social or political judgements, as such matters already have other fora to be addressed. I leave it to the reader as to whether or not this policy framework has been successful in facilitating growth of the Internet. On pleasant side effect of a needs-based framework is that that the smallest of entities can actually receive the largest allocations if their technical need can be documented to be valid. Given that we're discussing IPv6, in which there is more than ample space available, attempting to define some artificial political criteria to otherwise limit valid documented requests for address space does not benefit any party, and would greatly complicate what is presently a rather simple matter for all parties of all types to receive IPv6 Internet number resources. > I remain suspicious that the shoulders of ARIN were lent on not too gently > in the reservation of 42,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 > addresses (or whatever the figure is). I can't see that the allocation would > have been made otherwise. You have not only the right to be suspicious, but to some extent a responsibility: “There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots - suspicion.” - Demosthenes Yet under the circumstances, I can only refer you to the applicant for more information about their request and justification. As I have been Chairman of ARIN from inception till last summer and the President and CEO since, and I can state with authority that the only pressure being applied between USG and ARIN is ARIN's gentle but successful reminders to the DoD of the community's IPv4 address needs and the obligation to return addresses which might otherwise go unused. As community-led and funded organization, ARIN has no dependency on the US Government, and hence had little difficulty explaining and receiving cooperation on the appropriate documentation needed in order to proceed with their IPv6 request. If you can point to any other organization in the Internet administrative space which has operated with comparable freedom from political interference, I'd be interested in hearing about it. /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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 29 07:27:11 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:57:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Re-post] Consensus call on IGC statement: please In-Reply-To: <4B62D261.2000806@itforchange.net> References: <5FB35172-3919-467F-A33D-0A1C80DFF38F@ciroap.org> <4B62D261.2000806@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B62D41F.6080903@itforchange.net> a mistyping which changes the meaning, so I am resending the concerned part... While appreciate your effort to take this forward in this manner, this is to point to a technical issue... From my experience, I think most people here would just say, yes, even when they agree to the whole lot, rather than say yes + thematic working groups. Parminder wrote: > Jeremy, > > While appreciate your effort to take this forward in this manner, > this is to point to a technical issue... From my experience, I think > most people here would just say, yes, even if when they agree to the > whole lot, then say yes + thematic working groups. This would let to > the erroneous impression that they do not support thematic groups... > Since many agreed immediately to Bill's proposal of this change, I do > think that the general feeing in the group is for keeping this in. I > suggest you just put it in the statement, and give the option to > people to vote yes, or yes, but minus WGs.... Sorry, if this sounds > bothersome. Just trying to help :) > > parminder . > > > JJeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Reposted as previously, with minor changes as follows: >> >> * one sentence struck out (or in double square brackets if your mail >> client does not show striking out) >> >> * one added paragraph underlined (or in single square brackets if >> your mail client does not show underlining) >> >> Please vote: >> >> *YES + thematic working groups *to accept the statement as shown here >> *YES* to accept the statement without underlined passage >> *NO* to reject the statement >> >> *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting >> of the IGF* >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the >> continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a >> multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public >> policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended >> for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe >> should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of >> incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. >> >> None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an >> institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally >> convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and >> a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of >> Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to >> the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. >> >> One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the >> composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself >> should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many >> also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in >> the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should >> continue to be made more transparent. >> >> One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the >> participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the >> substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might >> not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about >> the IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not >> take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the >> programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. >> [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the >> present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the >> preparation of IGF meetings.]] >> >> The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards >> the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to >> "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements >> (though many of our members would also support outputs of these >> stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be >> taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external >> institutions through appropriate mechanisms. >> >> Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's >> intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open >> consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely >> connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there >> should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups >> and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This >> would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups >> and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and >> perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. >> >> [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop >> background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes >> selected to be taken up by the IGF.] >> >> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, >> which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from >> civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively >> engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed >> term. >> >> *About the IGC* >> >> The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a >> wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively >> engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up >> to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is >> to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance >> policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers >> to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about >> our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org >> . >> >> -- >> >> *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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Jan 29 07:54:13 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:54:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Re-post] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES + thematic working groups, YES or NO In-Reply-To: <5FB35172-3919-467F-A33D-0A1C80DFF38F@ciroap.org> References: <5FB35172-3919-467F-A33D-0A1C80DFF38F@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi, Given the way the process was managed and the options are now framed, I vote no. Best, Bill On Jan 29, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Reposted as previously, with minor changes as follows: > > * one sentence struck out (or in double square brackets if your mail client does not show striking out) > > * one added paragraph underlined (or in single square brackets if your mail client does not show underlining) > > Please vote: > > YES + thematic working groups to accept the statement as shown here > YES to accept the statement without underlined passage > NO to reject the statement > > Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings.]] > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. > > Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF.] > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > About the IGC > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. > > -- > 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 29 08:19:47 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:49:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Re-post] Consensus call on IGC statement: please In-Reply-To: References: <5FB35172-3919-467F-A33D-0A1C80DFF38F@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B62E073.4060803@itforchange.net> If Bill's real objection is to the way options are framed, it may be worth a try to make a clean statement for a clear 'yes' and 'no'. As I said earlier the part on 'working groups' which complicates options is not so controversial as to need a special option. As for the management of the process, there has been a problem of very little participation of IGC members, which blame all of us should share. Another complicating factor which can be corrected with experience is that the time line for final comments was set a week ago and then, after a week, the final statement was put out. It mostly works if a day or two before making it final final, a warning is given that it is now or never. Most people just jump in at that last moment as happened this time too. So we can perhaps just take that lesson and now put a new clean statement for 'yes' or 'no'. My two cents. Parminder William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > Given the way the process was managed and the options are now framed, > I vote no. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > On Jan 29, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> Reposted as previously, with minor changes as follows: >> >> * one sentence struck out (or in double square brackets if your mail >> client does not show striking out) >> >> * one added paragraph underlined (or in single square brackets if >> your mail client does not show underlining) >> >> Please vote: >> >> *YES + thematic working groups *to accept the statement as shown here >> *YES* to accept the statement without underlined passage >> *NO* to reject the statement >> >> *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting >> of the IGF* >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the >> continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a >> multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public >> policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended >> for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe >> should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of >> incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. >> >> None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an >> institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally >> convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and >> a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of >> Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to >> the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. >> >> One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the >> composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself >> should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many >> also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in >> the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should >> continue to be made more transparent. >> >> One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the >> participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the >> substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might >> not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about >> the IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not >> take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the >> programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. >> [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the >> present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the >> preparation of IGF meetings.]] >> >> The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards >> the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to >> "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements >> (though many of our members would also support outputs of these >> stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be >> taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external >> institutions through appropriate mechanisms. >> >> Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's >> intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open >> consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely >> connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there >> should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups >> and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This >> would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups >> and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and >> perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. >> >> [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop >> background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes >> selected to be taken up by the IGF.] >> >> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, >> which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from >> civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively >> engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed >> term. >> >> *About the IGC* >> >> The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a >> wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively >> engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up >> to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is >> to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance >> policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers >> to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about >> our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org >> . >> >> -- >> >> *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 > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > *********************************************************** > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Jan 29 09:30:19 2010 From: pbekono at gmail.com (Pascal Bekono) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:30:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES In-Reply-To: References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <80f151491001290630h647b70d2m6c8e67a548917cc2@mail.gmail.com> YES I agree 2010/1/29, Jeremy Malcolm : > On 29/01/2010, at 7:05 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > >> You have not taken into account some of the comments about making this >> statement emphatic. Why is this statement still light and gentle? Is it >> difficult for you to make this statement any stronger for any reason? > > Whilst I had no problem with them personally, your more emphatic changes > were specifically objected to on the list, and I made a judgment that to > introduce them would bring the group further from consensus rather than > closer to it. > >> What is missing is a bit of praise for the Secreatariat and the MAG for >> all that they have done. In the absence of positive comments, if the IGC >> merely points out what is missing ( or what is wrong with the working of >> the MAG) and somewhere else express doubts about the extension of the >> mandate, the net effect would be negative. > > For the future, please post such remarks earlier in the process. :-) For > now we are seeking a YES or a NO. The same applies to the other suggestions > in your email, such as introducing commentary on WSIS. Even so, thanks for > participating. :-) > > -- > 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 29 09:44:37 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:44:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond In-Reply-To: <4B62CE14.6060903@paque.net> Message-ID: <311276.602.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I vote NO     Process was ill formatted.  Jeremy clearly did not have the time to guide this process and was an advocate or defender of his positions by fiat not logic and persuasiveness.  All these last minute concerns were voiced and ignored or Jeremy simply did not have the time to study and clarify(understand). Literally no Latino/Hispanic input or outreach and Asian input was negligible. I only noticed "out of Africa" participation but nothing "from" Africa.   MAG needs serious reform as it remains an ICANNesque appointment by status quo supporters.   There remains here a silencing of voices in any way critical of the old guard and a definite slant toward self and elite cadre aggrandizement. This is reflected with emphasis in the "mushy" statement. No this is not a "great" job. It is in fact a very bad job. --- On Fri, 1/29/10, Ginger Paque wrote: From: Ginger Paque Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, January 29, 2010, 12:01 PM You guys are doing a great job negotiating a complex statement. Separate statements for different themes have definite advantages: any specific issue can be easily commented upon at the appropriate time during the meeting. We can still agree on other points during this coming week. gp Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 29/01/2010, at 7:49 PM, Parminder wrote: Would it make a difference to your "NO" vote to remove it?  I can go with the statement if this sentence is removed, and as suggested by Bill the part on intersessional working groups is added, and we work on a separate short statement for theme suggestions for IGF 5. Thanks for your kind consideration. parminder Thanks Parminder, that is good news.  I feel confident that Wolfgang, McTim and Bill will go along with this. Now, we need more votes... --  Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world.  http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Jan 29 09:56:23 2010 From: gate.one205 at yahoo.fr (Jean-Yves GATETE) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:56:23 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES + thematic working groups, YES or NO In-Reply-To: <5FB35172-3919-467F-A33D-0A1C80DFF38F@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <532636.79819.qm@web27803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I vote Yes, Jean-Yves Gatete --- En date de : Ven 29.1.10, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : De: Jeremy Malcolm Objet: [governance] [Re-post] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES + thematic working groups, YES or NO À: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Vendredi 29 Janvier 2010, 13h03 Reposted as previously, with minor changes as follows: * one sentence struck out (or in double square brackets if your mail client does not show striking out) * one added paragraph underlined (or in single square brackets if your mail client does not show underlining) Please vote: YES + thematic working groups to accept the statement as shown hereYES to accept the statement without underlined passage NO to reject the statement Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.  When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA).  We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups.  Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings.  We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that).  If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone.  [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings.]] The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds).  Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and regional meetings.  In particular, there should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF.] We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society.  We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. About the IGC The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter.  More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. -- 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 1599CI is 50Consumers 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. -----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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 29 09:57:40 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:57:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] [Re-post] Consensus call on IGC statement: please In-Reply-To: <4B62D261.2000806@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <842789.62410.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Sorry guys,   You do not get to post a call for a final and then change it -- like extending the voting time, bad practice and creates the air of politicking. --- On Fri, 1/29/10, Parminder wrote: From: Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] [Re-post] Consensus call on IGC statement: please To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" Date: Friday, January 29, 2010, 12:19 PM Jeremy, While  appreciate your effort to take this forward in this manner, this is to point to a technical issue... From my experience, I think most people here would just say, yes, even if when they agree to the whole lot, then say yes + thematic working groups. This would let to the erroneous impression that they do not support thematic groups... Since many agreed immediately to Bill's proposal of this change, I do think that the general feeing in the group is for keeping this in. I suggest you just put it in the statement, and give the option to people to vote yes, or yes, but minus WGs.... Sorry, if this sounds bothersome. Just trying to help :) parminder . JJeremy Malcolm wrote: Reposted as previously, with minor changes as follows: * one sentence struck out (or in double square brackets if your mail client does not show striking out) * one added paragraph underlined (or in single square brackets if your mail client does not show underlining) Please vote: YES + thematic working groups to accept the statement as shown here YES to accept the statement without underlined passage  NO to reject the statement Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.  When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA).  We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups.  Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings.  We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that).  If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone.  [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings.]] The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds).  Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and regional meetings.  In particular, there should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF.] We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society.  We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. About the IGC The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter.  More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. --  Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world.  http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 29 10:00:36 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:00:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES In-Reply-To: <80f151491001290630h647b70d2m6c8e67a548917cc2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <979815.32784.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> With what?  You say you agree and then attach it to an argument. --- On Fri, 1/29/10, Pascal Bekono wrote: From: Pascal Bekono Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" Date: Friday, January 29, 2010, 2:30 PM YES I agree 2010/1/29, Jeremy Malcolm : > On 29/01/2010, at 7:05 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > >> You have not taken into account some of the comments about making this >> statement emphatic. Why is this statement still light and gentle? Is it >> difficult for you to make this statement any stronger for any reason? > > Whilst I had no problem with them personally, your more emphatic changes > were specifically objected to on the list, and I made a judgment that to > introduce them would bring the group further from consensus rather than > closer to it. > >> What is missing is a bit of praise for the Secreatariat and the MAG for >> all that they have done. In the absence of positive comments, if the IGC >> merely points out what is missing ( or what is wrong with the working of >> the MAG) and somewhere else express doubts about the extension of the >> mandate, the net effect would be negative. > > For the future, please post such remarks earlier in the process. :-)  For > now we are seeking a YES or a NO.  The same applies to the other suggestions > in your email, such as introducing commentary on WSIS.  Even so, thanks for > participating. :-) > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > CI is 50 > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer > rights around the world. > http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 29 10:05:52 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:05:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES or NO In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <307681.69383.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Do you agree with the Statement? Or do you agree simply that it be put forward?   The call for consensus should be either an "and" or just asking for support of the accuracy of the statement. This is framed in such a way so as to be equivocal at best   --- On Fri, 1/29/10, AHM Bazlur Rahman wrote: From: AHM Bazlur Rahman Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES or NO To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" Date: Friday, January 29, 2010, 10:56 AM From Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication(BNNRC) Big YES     With solidarity,   Bazlu _______________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication(BNNRC) & Member, Strategy Council UN-Global Alliance for ICT and Development (UN GAID)   House: 13/1, Road:2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh   Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105   E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net, bnnrc at bd.drik.net www.bnnrc.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeremy Malcolm To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 1:51 PM Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES or NO Please reply YES if you agree that the statement below should be put forward by the IGC for the next IGF open consultation meeting.  Please reply NO if you do not agree.  Please do not suggest further changes, unless they are typographical or grammatical.  Responses will be received for 48 hours from the time of this message, following which Ginger and I will assess whether a rough consensus exists.  That decision will be subject to appeal.  Thank you! Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.  When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA).  We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups.  Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings.  We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that).  If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone.  The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings. The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds).  Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and regional meetings.  In particular, there should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society.  We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. About the IGC The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter.  More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. --  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 -----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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Jan 29 10:18:28 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:18:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond In-Reply-To: <307681.69383.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: ,<307681.69383.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CBC0@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Eric, We have a newbie coordinator just getting the hang of herding us virtual cats. I for one am prepared to be more tolerant with this particular attempt at reaching a rough consensus text. I suspect some voting yes are similarly showing support and confidence in us reaching a 'good enough' final text. Lee ________________________________________ From: Eric Dierker [cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 10:05 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; AHM Bazlur Rahman Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES or NO Do you agree with the Statement? Or do you agree simply that it be put forward? The call for consensus should be either an "and" or just asking for support of the accuracy of the statement. This is framed in such a way so as to be equivocal at best --- On Fri, 1/29/10, AHM Bazlur Rahman wrote: From: AHM Bazlur Rahman Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES or NO To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" Date: Friday, January 29, 2010, 10:56 AM From Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication(BNNRC) Big YES With solidarity, Bazlu _______________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication(BNNRC) & Member, Strategy Council UN-Global Alliance for ICT and Development (UN GAID) House: 13/1, Road:2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net, bnnrc at bd.drik.net www.bnnrc.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeremy Malcolm To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 1:51 PM Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES or NO Please reply YES if you agree that the statement below should be put forward by the IGC for the next IGF open consultation meeting. Please reply NO if you do not agree. Please do not suggest further changes, unless they are typographical or grammatical. Responses will be received for 48 hours from the time of this message, following which Ginger and I will assess whether a rough consensus exists. That decision will be subject to appeal. Thank you! Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings. The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. About the IGC The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. -- 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 -----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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Jan 29 10:22:01 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:22:01 +0800 Subject: [governance] [Re-post] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES + thematic working groups, YES or NO In-Reply-To: <4B62D261.2000806@itforchange.net> References: <5FB35172-3919-467F-A33D-0A1C80DFF38F@ciroap.org> <4B62D261.2000806@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2D4BBC28-566D-4A58-AEFB-22172E61C886@ciroap.org> On 29/01/2010, at 8:19 PM, Parminder wrote: > While appreciate your effort to take this forward in this manner, this is to point to a technical issue... From my experience, I think most people here would just say, yes, even if when they agree to the whole lot, then say yes + thematic working groups. This would let to the erroneous impression that they do not support thematic groups... Since many agreed immediately to Bill's proposal of this change, I do think that the general feeing in the group is for keeping this in. I suggest you just put it in the statement, and give the option to people to vote yes, or yes, but minus WGs.... Sorry, if this sounds bothersome. Just trying to help :) It was your proposal originally, posted on 21 January. It made its way into the draft posted on 27 January. McTim disagreed with it and argued it be struck. Bill asked to change the wording by removing "of MAG members plus outsiders". Lee agreed with Bill's email generally (not mentioning this part in particular). So did I miss it when "many agreed immediately"? I'm actually not convinced there is a a consensus for new thematic working groups (much as I may like the idea). Consequently I'm not going to change the options to voting YES or YES - WGs, because that will only confuse people more. As a compromise however I am happy to query those who voted just YES off-list, and ask them to revise their vote on-list if they really meant YES + thematic working groups. Hope that helps. -- 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 Jan 29 10:23:32 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:23:32 +0800 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES or NO In-Reply-To: <307681.69383.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <307681.69383.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5B36E906-4663-417E-9F82-9091F4CB5FD7@ciroap.org> On 29/01/2010, at 11:05 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Do you agree with the Statement? > Or do you agree simply that it be put forward? > > The call for consensus should be either an "and" or just asking for support of the accuracy of the statement. > This is framed in such a way so as to be equivocal at best Eric, I'll handle the procedural side of the call for consensus. 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Fri Jan 29 10:31:15 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:31:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Aw: [governance] Consensus call response: YES Message-ID: YES + thematic working groups + process + [No on ITU Governace of IGF] Wolfgang is right, it's a process not an institution. Which means -No on ITU Governace of IGF- by the "ITU Institution." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 29 10:31:38 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:01:38 -0430 Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond In-Reply-To: <311276.602.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <311276.602.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B62FF5A.30306@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 wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Fri Jan 29 10:34:19 2010 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:34:19 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus call response: YES In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes; by the way, do we really have to respond in a way that everybody sees the response from everybody? I like transparency, but deleting messages takes a good part of my time on this list... Wolfgang Benedek ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 29 10:35:55 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:05:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Re-post] Consensus call on IGC statement: please In-Reply-To: <2D4BBC28-566D-4A58-AEFB-22172E61C886@ciroap.org> References: <5FB35172-3919-467F-A33D-0A1C80DFF38F@ciroap.org> <4B62D261.2000806@itforchange.net> <2D4BBC28-566D-4A58-AEFB-22172E61C886@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B63005B.7020008@itforchange.net> In that case i vote yes, with WGs addition. Parminder Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 29/01/2010, at 8:19 PM, Parminder wrote: > >> While appreciate your effort to take this forward in this manner, >> this is to point to a technical issue... From my experience, I think >> most people here would just say, yes, even if when they agree to the >> whole lot, then say yes + thematic working groups. This would let to >> the erroneous impression that they do not support thematic groups... >> Since many agreed immediately to Bill's proposal of this change, I do >> think that the general feeing in the group is for keeping this in. I >> suggest you just put it in the statement, and give the option to >> people to vote yes, or yes, but minus WGs.... Sorry, if this sounds >> bothersome. Just trying to help :) > > It was your proposal originally, posted on 21 January. It made its > way into the draft posted on 27 January. McTim disagreed with it and > argued it be struck. Bill asked to change the wording by removing "of > MAG members plus outsiders". Lee agreed with Bill's email generally > (not mentioning this part in particular). So did I miss it when "many > agreed immediately"? Lee agreed. McTim also agreed to it.... Two agreeing within 24 hours is 'many' in the context of the present level of participation :) . I also believe there is in fact good enough consensus on the WG idea, broadly... We have had statements earlier on this. > > I'm actually not convinced there is a a consensus for new thematic > working groups (much as I may like the idea). Consequently I'm not > going to change the options to voting YES or YES - WGs, because that > will only confuse people more. As a compromise however I am happy to > query those who voted just YES off-list, and ask them to revise their > vote on-list if they really meant YES + thematic working groups. > > Hope that helps. > > -- > > *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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Jan 29 10:44:16 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:44:16 -0500 Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B44@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <70FD511F-C8D9-4E7B-9113-B0E9047C94FB@graduateinstitute.ch> ,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B44@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CBC1@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Lee: I happen to like calling IGF an insitution, as it makes it seem less likely it can disappear overnight as theoretically we must now still fear. That this 'institution, if it is one, is a Virtual Organization, makes it perhaps the 1st of a new breed for UN affiliated 'institutions, I consider a virtue and not a problem. So I consider the IGF the central institution facilitating a process. But this may be a discussion for another day...so I defer to Jeremy on this. ________________________________________ From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 5:28 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond Jeremy: No, it means these points should have been made earlier. :-P Wolfgang: I understand fully, Jeremy, that you are frustrated with all the last minute comments and you have to draw a line. However if there is flexibility to avoid in the last muinute a mistake we should try to avoid a mistake. Again I think the "institutions vs. process" issue is an important strategic one and we should be clear on the side of the "enhanced process". You will have difficulties to "innovate" within an institutuion as soon as it exists. So lets wait for some other comments and than you have all the trust of the community to make a wise and forward looking decision. Good Luck 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jan 29 12:22:26 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:22:26 +0300 Subject: [governance] [Re-post] Consensus call on IGC statement: please In-Reply-To: References: <5FB35172-3919-467F-A33D-0A1C80DFF38F@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:54 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi, > Given the way the process was managed and the options are now framed, I vote > no. I'm with Bill on this. NO on process, NO on statement. -- 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 email at hakik.org Fri Jan 29 13:06:41 2010 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:06:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] [Re-post] Consensus call on IGC statement: In-Reply-To: <2D4BBC28-566D-4A58-AEFB-22172E61C886@ciroap.org> References: <5FB35172-3919-467F-A33D-0A1C80DFF38F@ciroap.org> <4B62D261.2000806@itforchange.net> <2D4BBC28-566D-4A58-AEFB-22172E61C886@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20100129180843.D345B921AA@npogroups.org> YES + thematic working groups Hakikur Rahman At 15:22 29-01-2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >On 29/01/2010, at 8:19 PM, Parminder wrote: > >>While appreciate your effort to take this forward in this manner, >>this is to point to a technical issue... From my experience, I >>think most people here would just say, yes, even if when they agree >>to the whole lot, then say yes + thematic working groups. This >>would let to the erroneous impression that they do not support >>thematic groups... Since many agreed immediately to Bill's proposal >>of this change, I do think that the general feeing in the group is >>for keeping this in. I suggest you just put it in the statement, >>and give the option to people to vote yes, or yes, but minus >>WGs.... Sorry, if this sounds bothersome. Just trying to help :) > >It was your proposal originally, posted on 21 January. It made its >way into the draft posted on 27 January. McTim disagreed with it >and argued it be struck. Bill asked to change the wording by >removing "of MAG members plus outsiders". Lee agreed with Bill's >email generally (not mentioning this part in particular). So did I >miss it when "many agreed immediately"? > >I'm actually not convinced there is a a consensus for new thematic >working groups (much as I may like the idea). Consequently I'm not >going to change the options to voting YES or YES - WGs, because that >will only confuse people more. As a compromise however I am happy >to query those who voted just YES off-list, and ask them to revise >their vote on-list if they really meant YES + thematic working groups. > >Hope that helps. > >-- > >Jeremy Malcolm >Project Coordinator >Consumers International >Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >Lumpur, Malaysia >Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >CI is 50 >Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer >movement in 2010. >Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect >consumer rights around the world. >http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 > >Read our >email >confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 29 14:27:24 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:27:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Re-post] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES + thematic working groups, YES or NO In-Reply-To: <2D4BBC28-566D-4A58-AEFB-22172E61C886@ciroap.org> References: <5FB35172-3919-467F-A33D-0A1C80DFF38F@ciroap.org> <4B62D261.2000806@itforchange.net> <2D4BBC28-566D-4A58-AEFB-22172E61C886@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <2DC81AA3-1D2C-4C37-93BE-B57073E9DD2F@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi On Jan 29, 2010, at 4:22 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 29/01/2010, at 8:19 PM, Parminder wrote: > >> While appreciate your effort to take this forward in this manner, this is to point to a technical issue... From my experience, I think most people here would just say, yes, even if when they agree to the whole lot, then say yes + thematic working groups. This would let to the erroneous impression that they do not support thematic groups... Since many agreed immediately to Bill's proposal of this change, I do think that the general feeing in the group is for keeping this in. I suggest you just put it in the statement, and give the option to people to vote yes, or yes, but minus WGs.... Sorry, if this sounds bothersome. Just trying to help :) > > It was your proposal originally, posted on 21 January. It made its way into the draft posted on 27 January. McTim disagreed with it and argued it be struck. Bill asked to change the wording by removing "of MAG members plus outsiders". Lee agreed with Bill's email generally (not mentioning this part in particular). So did I miss it when "many agreed immediately"? > > I'm actually not convinced there is a a consensus for new thematic working groups (much as I may like the idea). Consequently I'm not going to change the options to voting YES or YES - WGs, because that will only confuse people more. As a compromise however I am happy to query those who voted just YES off-list, and ask them to revise their vote on-list if they really meant YES + thematic working groups. I asking that there be a line on WGs. I also said On Jan 29, 2010, at 10:17 AM, William Drake wrote: > Why not just replace "The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members plus outsiders" with "The IGF could also organize thematic working groups..." and leave the precise modalities of participation and input TBD? But I guess that was ruled unacceptable, since the text of the consensus calls again says On Jan 29, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF.] My concern with this is more procedural than substantive (although I don't share the view that a conference requires a PolitBureau to organize everything, rather than having spaces for stakeholder initiative). Others made other suggestions that were similarly discarded. I am at the same time coordinating a drafting team in the GNSO, on the AoC implementation plan. When corporate lobbyists or others ask that language be included, I don't take it upon myself to decide this gets in, this stays out, this I'll reword to suit my views rather than those of the person who made the suggestion—even if I strongly disagree with it. If there's no obvious consensus it goes in brackets and then we try to work it out. We used to do things that way in the IGC, and I don't recall us deciding on a more centralized approach. And there is no urgency here that requires short circuiting participatory decision making. Parminder is right that we all should have moved more quickly rather than waiting, and it's a pity if this can't be drawn into the Synthesis Report, but that's water over the bridge. At this point it doesn't really matter if the thing isn't done for a week, Ginger can still read it at the consultation. What does matter is that IGC follows trusted procedures and preserves a sense of community . Best, Bill PS: Parminder you're right, I went back and looked and the TA only refers to a "forum," even if people often characterized conversationally it as a "process," so that would indeed be the appropriate terminology. In contrast, as Wolfgang noted, to governmental and IO reps an IGC statement referring to it as an "institution" would likely be read rather differently, e.g. as something they should be managing, consistent with UN practice. Hopefully they'll all be up on their social theory and be familiar with one of the dozens of non-ordinary language definitions of institutions so as to avoid undue inferences.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Jan 29 15:33:42 2010 From: pbekono at gmail.com (Pascal Bekono) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:33:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES In-Reply-To: <979815.32784.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <80f151491001290630h647b70d2m6c8e67a548917cc2@mail.gmail.com> <979815.32784.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <80f151491001291233u5dd655ael9d4751526df6700@mail.gmail.com> Yes, I agree with the statement 2010/1/29, Eric Dierker : > With what?  You say you agree and then attach it to an argument. > > --- On Fri, 1/29/10, Pascal Bekono wrote: > > > From: Pascal Bekono > Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond > YES > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" > Date: Friday, January 29, 2010, 2:30 PM > > > YES I agree > > 2010/1/29, Jeremy Malcolm : >> On 29/01/2010, at 7:05 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> >>> You have not taken into account some of the comments about making this >>> statement emphatic. Why is this statement still light and gentle? Is it >>> difficult for you to make this statement any stronger for any reason? >> >> Whilst I had no problem with them personally, your more emphatic changes >> were specifically objected to on the list, and I made a judgment that to >> introduce them would bring the group further from consensus rather than >> closer to it. >> >>> What is missing is a bit of praise for the Secreatariat and the MAG for >>> all that they have done. In the absence of positive comments, if the IGC >>> merely points out what is missing ( or what is wrong with the working of >>> the MAG) and somewhere else express doubts about the extension of the >>> mandate, the net effect would be negative. >> >> For the future, please post such remarks earlier in the process. :-)  For >> now we are seeking a YES or a NO.  The same applies to the other >> suggestions >> in your email, such as introducing commentary on WSIS.  Even so, thanks >> for >> participating. :-) >> >> -- >> 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Jan 29 20:07:05 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:07:05 +0800 Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus call response: YES In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29/01/2010, at 11:34 PM, wrote: > Yes; by the way, do we really have to respond in a way that everybody sees the response from everybody? I like transparency, but deleting messages takes a good part of my time on this list... You may reply privately. One respondent has already done that. It just means placing more trust in the coordinators. For the future, perhaps we could experiment with an online poll for consensus calls, similar to our voting for coordinators. -- 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 Fri Jan 29 20:09:24 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:09:24 +0800 Subject: [governance] [Re-post] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES + thematic working groups, YES or NO In-Reply-To: <2DC81AA3-1D2C-4C37-93BE-B57073E9DD2F@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <5FB35172-3919-467F-A33D-0A1C80DFF38F@ciroap.org> <4B62D261.2000806@itforchange.net> <2D4BBC28-566D-4A58-AEFB-22172E61C886@ciroap.org> <2DC81AA3-1D2C-4C37-93BE-B57073E9DD2F@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <64ED8FBB-2610-4585-AA8C-A863B5B5D1A7@ciroap.org> On 30/01/2010, at 3:27 AM, William Drake wrote: > I am at the same time coordinating a drafting team in the GNSO, on the AoC implementation plan. When corporate lobbyists or others ask that language be included, I don't take it upon myself to decide this gets in, this stays out, this I'll reword to suit my views rather than those of the person who made the suggestion—even if I strongly disagree with it. If there's no obvious consensus it goes in brackets and then we try to work it out. We used to do things that way in the IGC, and I don't recall us deciding on a more centralized approach. We will welcome your nomination for coordinator next time, Bill. -- 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 ca at cafonso.ca Fri Jan 29 20:52:51 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:52:51 -0200 Subject: [governance] [Re-post] Consensus call on IGC statement: please In-Reply-To: <4B63005B.7020008@itforchange.net> References: <5FB35172-3919-467F-A33D-0A1C80DFF38F@ciroap.org> <4B62D261.2000806@itforchange.net> <2D4BBC28-566D-4A58-AEFB-22172E61C886@ciroap.org> <4B63005B.7020008@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B6390F3.3040102@cafonso.ca> I follow Parminder: yes + thematic wgs. --c.a. Parminder wrote: > In that case i vote yes, with WGs addition. Parminder > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 29/01/2010, at 8:19 PM, Parminder wrote: >> >>> While appreciate your effort to take this forward in this manner, >>> this is to point to a technical issue... From my experience, I think >>> most people here would just say, yes, even if when they agree to the >>> whole lot, then say yes + thematic working groups. This would let to >>> the erroneous impression that they do not support thematic groups... >>> Since many agreed immediately to Bill's proposal of this change, I do >>> think that the general feeing in the group is for keeping this in. I >>> suggest you just put it in the statement, and give the option to >>> people to vote yes, or yes, but minus WGs.... Sorry, if this sounds >>> bothersome. Just trying to help :) >> >> It was your proposal originally, posted on 21 January. It made its >> way into the draft posted on 27 January. McTim disagreed with it and >> argued it be struck. Bill asked to change the wording by removing "of >> MAG members plus outsiders". Lee agreed with Bill's email generally >> (not mentioning this part in particular). So did I miss it when "many >> agreed immediately"? > Lee agreed. McTim also agreed to it.... Two agreeing within 24 hours is > 'many' in the context of the present level of participation :) . I also > believe there is in fact good enough consensus on the WG idea, > broadly... We have had statements earlier on this. >> >> I'm actually not convinced there is a a consensus for new thematic >> working groups (much as I may like the idea). Consequently I'm not >> going to change the options to voting YES or YES - WGs, because that >> will only confuse people more. As a compromise however I am happy to >> query those who voted just YES off-list, and ask them to revise their >> vote on-list if they really meant YES + thematic working groups. >> >> Hope that helps. >> >> -- >> >> *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. >> > -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From charityg at diplomacy.edu Sat Jan 30 00:35:15 2010 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:35:15 -0600 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES In-Reply-To: References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear all, My support to the IGC and to the people who have worked (and argued) hard for such a complex statement. So it is: YES + thematic working groups Regards, Charity On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:25 AM, McTim wrote: > +1 to all of what Bill said. > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:17 PM, William Drake > wrote: > > Hi > > > > On Jan 29, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > >> Please reply YES if you agree that the statement below should be put > forward by the IGC for the next IGF open consultation meeting. > > > > Thanks Jeremy for taking on board the comments and edits people have > suggested. I'd be a yes, but I wonder if you really need to close editing > and call consensus now; why not give it a day for final tweaks, since the > focus in the first instance is a statement for the consultation rather than > an input to the synthesis paper? > > > > If it's still possible: I wish you'd not deleted mention of the working > group sentence from the para on intersessional activities. Why not just > replace "The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members > plus outsiders" with "The IGF could also organize thematic working > groups..." and leave the precise modalities of participation and input TBD? > To me at least, it would have been nice to keep the idea on the table in > some form... > > > > Also I wonder if there isn't a way to address this, > > > > On Jan 29, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Parminder wrote: > > > >> "The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the > present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of > IGF meetings." > >> > >> therefore, to me, just means that we look to the new experiment of no > MAG meetings post feb, or in subsequent years, perhaps even ever, with > hopeful anticipation.... I think that is a strange view to project for a > group which put in so much effort in trying to shape IGF as a purposeful > body in the global Internet policies landscape. > > > > Parminder is there a sentence or two on what such contributions might > comprise and how to ensure a more purposeful agenda that would satisfy your > concerns? Personally I don't see that the text implies we look forward to > no MAG. Elsewhere we say that representation in the MAG should be more > balanced, mention uncertainty about its rotation while renewal is in the > air, and refer to it as part of the intersessional work we think could be > built out. But you'd like a more declarative 'we want a MAG' sentence? > > > > 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 > > > > -- > 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 -- Charity Gamboa-Embley Student Alternatives Program, Inc - South Plains Academy 4008 Avenue R Lubbock, Texas 79412 Phone: +1 (806) 744 0330 Fax: +1 (806) 741 1089 http://www.stdsapi.com/ 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 gate.one205 at yahoo.fr Sat Jan 30 03:02:52 2010 From: gate.one205 at yahoo.fr (Jean-Yves GATETE) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:02:52 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES + thematic working groups, YES or NO Message-ID: <349995.54651.qm@web27801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Dear all , Thanks Jeremy, I vote YES + thematic working groups Gatete --- En date de : Sam 30.1.10, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : De: Jeremy Malcolm Objet: Re: Re : [governance]Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES + thematic working groups, YES or NO À: "Jean-Yves GATETE" Date: Samedi 30 Janvier 2010, 2h25 On 29/01/2010, at 10:56 PM, Jean-Yves GATETE wrote: I vote Yes, Jean-Yves Gatete Thanks.  Do you also want this sentence included? - "The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF." If so please reply back to the list to amend your vote to: YES + thematic working groups If not, you need do nothing.  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 1599CI is 50Consumers 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 Sat Jan 30 04:32:34 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:32:34 +0800 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working groups, YES or NO Message-ID: If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open consultation meeting, please vote now. At present the statement might not pass the consensus call - not because there has been a lot of opposition to it, but because the total number of responses is still relatively low. Please also remember that we have another thread in which to discuss the agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far there has been no response to Parminder's suggestion of a theme on "Network Neutrality/Open Internet". Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call. Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to clarify their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have yet changed their vote. Please vote: YES + thematic working groups to accept the statement as shown here YES to accept the statement without the [underlined passage] NO to reject the statement Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings.]] The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF.] We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. About the IGC The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. -- 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sat Jan 30 04:51:08 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 10:51:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working groups, YES or NO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi On Jan 30, 2010, at 10:32 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call. Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to clarify their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have yet changed their vote. And, I presume, to ascertain that they are IGC members in good standing, not just list subscribers, per standard practice? On Jan 30, 2010, at 2:09 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 30/01/2010, at 3:27 AM, William Drake wrote: > >> I am at the same time coordinating a drafting team in the GNSO, on the AoC implementation plan. When corporate lobbyists or others ask that language be included, I don't take it upon myself to decide this gets in, this stays out, this I'll reword to suit my views rather than those of the person who made the suggestion—even if I strongly disagree with it. If there's no obvious consensus it goes in brackets and then we try to work it out. We used to do things that way in the IGC, and I don't recall us deciding on a more centralized approach. > > We will welcome your nomination for coordinator next time, Bill. Thank you for responding to my concerns so seriously, Jeremy. Really befits the co-coordinator role. 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 Sat Jan 30 05:18:55 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:18:55 +1100 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes with thematics From: Jeremy Malcolm Reply-To: , Jeremy Malcolm Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:32:34 +0800 To: Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working groups, YES or NO If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open consultation meeting, please vote now. At present the statement might not pass the consensus call - not because there has been a lot of opposition to it, but because the total number of responses is still relatively low. Please also remember that we have another thread in which to discuss the agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far there has been no response to Parminder's suggestion of a theme on "Network Neutrality/Open Internet". Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call. Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to clarify their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have yet changed their vote. Please vote: YES + thematic working groups to accept the statement as shown here YES to accept the statement without the [underlined passage] NO to reject the statement Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings.]] The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF.] We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. About the IGC The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 30 05:42:40 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:42:40 -0200 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B640D20.8060700@cafonso.ca> I have to disagree with my friend Bill's procedure. Perfect or not, the coordinator had to go ahead with the voting at some point, and we all seemed to agree with it. I think the time to keep insisting on the possible imperfections is way past now. I think compa Parm also raised questions during the voting which should have been brought to discussion earlier, but he rapidly agreed to abide by the voting process now under way. Of course, this being a diverse and democratic space, we all can express our disagreement with the content of the motion after the voting and make these clear in the MAG consultation process. IMHO --c.a. William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Jan 30, 2010, at 10:32 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call. Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to clarify their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have yet changed their vote. > > And, I presume, to ascertain that they are IGC members in good standing, not just list subscribers, per standard practice? > > On Jan 30, 2010, at 2:09 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 30/01/2010, at 3:27 AM, William Drake wrote: >> >>> I am at the same time coordinating a drafting team in the GNSO, on the AoC implementation plan. When corporate lobbyists or others ask that language be included, I don't take it upon myself to decide this gets in, this stays out, this I'll reword to suit my views rather than those of the person who made the suggestion—even if I strongly disagree with it. If there's no obvious consensus it goes in brackets and then we try to work it out. We used to do things that way in the IGC, and I don't recall us deciding on a more centralized approach. >> We will welcome your nomination for coordinator next time, Bill. > > Thank you for responding to my concerns so seriously, Jeremy. Really befits the co-coordinator role. > > 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Jan 30 06:16:58 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 19:16:58 +0800 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working groups, YES or NO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0BA40163-10C4-4CD5-94CD-6E7699335E09@ciroap.org> On 30/01/2010, at 5:51 PM, William Drake wrote: >>> I am at the same time coordinating a drafting team in the GNSO, on the AoC implementation plan. When corporate lobbyists or others ask that language be included, I don't take it upon myself to decide this gets in, this stays out, this I'll reword to suit my views rather than those of the person who made the suggestion—even if I strongly disagree with it. If there's no obvious consensus it goes in brackets and then we try to work it out. We used to do things that way in the IGC, and I don't recall us deciding on a more centralized approach. >> >> We will welcome your nomination for coordinator next time, Bill. > > Thank you for responding to my concerns so seriously, Jeremy. Really befits the co-coordinator role. As you know, I did in fact respond to them off-list, prior to you posting this message, because I took exception to your suggestion that I was not approaching this exercise in good faith, but deciding what text to include or exclude based on my personal views. You have since suggested that I post our off-list discussion back to the list, and I might well do that once I have written a response to your latest. -- 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 gpaque at gmail.com Sat Jan 30 06:43:28 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 07:13:28 -0430 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B641B60.8030901@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Jan 30 06:50:22 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 12:50:22 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working References: <0BA40163-10C4-4CD5-94CD-6E7699335E09@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B54@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Bill: If there's no obvious consensus it goes in brackets and then we try to work it out. Wolfgang: As Bioll has outlöines this is the normal procedure negotiated texts are drafted since decades, both inside the UN system and outside. To late for this IGC statement. But there is IGC & IGF life beyond February 9. So lets learn from the mistakes and flaws of the production of this statement and look forward. Ther problem the chair has is always the same: He/she is dedicates but have to be as neutral as possible. The interesting thing in ICANNs NomCom is that the Chair has non vote. The vote is only with the members. In my eyes this is fair. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amedinagomez at gmail.com Sat Jan 30 06:56:37 2010 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 06:56:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond In-Reply-To: <532636.79819.qm@web27803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <5FB35172-3919-467F-A33D-0A1C80DFF38F@ciroap.org> <532636.79819.qm@web27803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2bd2431a1001300356o8b3285bj55b2808caecb9e2a@mail.gmail.com> *I vote Yes* Antonio Medina Gomez Presidente Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet. ACUI presidencia at acui.org.co amedinagomez at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Sat Jan 30 07:04:04 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:04:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES In-Reply-To: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> Message-ID: *I say YES* *and knowing human work being never perfect.* SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571 +243811980914 email: b.schombe at gmail.com blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble Royal, Entrée A,7e niveau. 2010/1/29 Jeremy Malcolm > Please reply YES if you agree that the statement below should be put > forward by the IGC for the next IGF open consultation meeting. Please reply > NO if you do not agree. Please do not suggest further changes, unless they > are typographical or grammatical. Responses will be received for 48 hours > from the time of this message, following which Ginger and I will assess > whether a rough consensus exists. That decision will be subject to appeal. > Thank you! > > *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of > the IGF* > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of > the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the > discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, > the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of > adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the > IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an > institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by > the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under > contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs > (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a > different UN body such as the ITU. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition > of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly > divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the > stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, > and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of > stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF > meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though > in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). > If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not > result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in > stone. The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the > present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of > IGF meetings. > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the > development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" > rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of > our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever > form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are > transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate > mechanisms. > > Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's > intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open > consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely > connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a > better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to > present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to > set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open > membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which > reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil > society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and > participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > *About the IGC* > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide > spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in > internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World > Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global > public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now > comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have > subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at > http://www.igcaucus.org. > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer > rights around the world. > *http://www.consumersinternational.org/50* > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From divina.meigs at orange.fr Sat Jan 30 07:43:05 2010 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:43:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I vote Yes and thank you all for manifesting our presence. divina Le 30/01/10 13:04, « Baudouin SCHOMBE » a écrit : >  I say YES and knowing human work being never perfect. > > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) > COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC > MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE > GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN) > > Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571 >                           +243811980914 > email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com > blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr > siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e niveau. > > > 2010/1/29 Jeremy Malcolm >> Please reply YES if you agree that the statement below should be put forward >> by the IGC for the next IGF open consultation meeting.  Please reply NO if >> you do not agree.  Please do not suggest further changes, unless they are >> typographical or grammatical.  Responses will be received for 48 hours from >> the time of this message, following which Ginger and I will assess whether a >> rough consensus exists.  That decision will be subject to appeal.  Thank you! >> >> Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the >> IGF >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of >> the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the >> discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.  When, as we expect, the >> forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of >> adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the >> IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. >> >> None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an >> institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by >> the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under >> contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs >> (UNDESA).  We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a >> different UN body such as the ITU. >> >> One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition >> of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly >> divided between the stakeholder groups.  Many also believe that the >> stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, >> and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. >> >> One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of >> stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF >> meetings.  We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though >> in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). >>  If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not >> result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in >> stone.  The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the >> present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of >> IGF meetings. >> >> The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the >> development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" >> rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of >> our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds).  Whatever >> form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are >> transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. >> >> Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's >> intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open >> consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely >> connected national and regional meetings.  In particular, there should be a >> better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to >> present their outputs to the IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to >> set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open >> membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. >> >> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which >> reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil >> society.  We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and >> participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. >> >> About the IGC >> >> The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread >> of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet >> governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the >> Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest >> objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than >> 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its >> Charter.  More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org >> . >> --  >> 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 >> > nt1stParentNodeID=89765> . Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Danielle.Mincio at bcu.unil.ch Sat Jan 30 07:52:32 2010 From: Danielle.Mincio at bcu.unil.ch (Danielle.Mincio at bcu.unil.ch) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:52:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working groups, YES or NO Message-ID: <4b642b90.226.1eda.1214194845@unil.ch> Yes + thematic working groups ----- Original Message ----- Expéditeur: Jeremy Malcolm à: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sujet: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working groups, YES or NO Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:32:34 +0800 > If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next > open consultation meeting, please vote now. At present > the statement might not pass the consensus call - not > because there has been a lot of opposition to it, but > because the total number of responses is still relatively > low. > > Please also remember that we have another thread in which > to discuss the agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far > there has been no response to Parminder's suggestion of a > theme on "Network Neutrality/Open Internet". > > Here once again is the statement on which we have a > consensus call. Everyone who has voted YES so far has > been contacted off-list to clarify their attitude towards > thematic working groups - none have yet changed their > vote. > > Please vote: > > YES + thematic working groups to accept the statement as > shown here YES to accept the statement without the > [underlined passage] NO to reject the statement > > Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el > Sheikh meeting of the IGF > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the > continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a > multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of > Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect > , the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, > there are a number of adjustments that we believe should > be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of > incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the > IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it > remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with > an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract > with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social > Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in > moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is > that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory > Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between > the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the > stakeholders should have a more direct role in the > selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should > continue to be made more transparent. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the > participation of stakeholders could be improved is in > setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We > understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year > (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future > need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take > place, care must be taken that this does not result in the > programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in > stone. [[The IGC is ready to make innovative > contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open > Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF > meetings.]] > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its > orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, > even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to > recommendations, declarations or statements (though many > of our members would also support outputs of these > stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts > should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to > relevant external institutions through appropriate > mechanisms. > > Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of > the IGF's intersessional work program, which is currently > limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic > coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and > regional meetings. In particular, there should be a > better mechanism than at present for these other groups > and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a > whole. This would require the IGF to set more stringent > standards for such groups and meetings, including open > membership, democratic processes, and perhaps > multi-stakeholder composition. > > [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to > develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc > on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF.] > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these > thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several > hundred members from civil society. We look forward to > continuing to constructively engage with and participate > in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > About the IGC > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, > with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation > , who are actively engaged in internet governance and the > IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the > Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote > global public interest objectives in Internet governance > policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual > subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to > its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at > http://www.igcaucus.org. > > -- > 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. > > > > [Pièce jointe: message-footer.txt] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Jan 30 08:10:27 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:10:27 +0800 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30/01/2010, at 8:53 PM, Divina MEIGS wrote: > Yes + thematic working groups > > I really think at this stage no text should be in brackets and as many ideas should be made as visible as possible. The discussion among us that this has generated can continue among ourselves, with or without consensus, but it is important to be strong in the face of the other stakeholders at this stage of the negotiation. Yes, absolutely, the brackets will be removed when the statement is submitted. They are just present now for our own reference. -- 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 b.schombe at gmail.com Sat Jan 30 08:14:01 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:14:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES In-Reply-To: References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> Message-ID: > *I say YES* *and knowing human work being never perfect.* > *My YES means WITH THEMATIC WORKING GROUPS* > > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) > COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC > MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE > GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN) > > Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571 > +243811980914 > email: b.schombe at gmail.com > blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr > siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble Royal, Entrée A,7e > niveau. > > > 2010/1/29 Jeremy Malcolm > >> Please reply YES if you agree that the statement below should be put >> forward by the IGC for the next IGF open consultation meeting. Please reply >> NO if you do not agree. Please do not suggest further changes, unless they >> are typographical or grammatical. Responses will be received for 48 hours >> from the time of this message, following which Ginger and I will assess >> whether a rough consensus exists. That decision will be subject to appeal. >> Thank you! >> >> *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of >> the IGF* >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of >> the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the >> discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, >> the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of >> adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the >> IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. >> >> None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an >> institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by >> the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under >> contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs >> (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a >> different UN body such as the ITU. >> >> One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the >> composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be >> more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that >> the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG >> members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more >> transparent. >> >> One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation >> of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of >> IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year >> (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude >> that). If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does >> not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in >> stone. The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the >> present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of >> IGF meetings. >> >> The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the >> development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" >> rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of >> our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever >> form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are >> transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate >> mechanisms. >> >> Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's >> intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open >> consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely >> connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a >> better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to >> present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to >> set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open >> membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. >> >> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which >> reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil >> society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and >> participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. >> >> *About the IGC* >> >> The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide >> spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in >> internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World >> Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global >> public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now >> comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have >> subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at >> http://www.igcaucus.org. >> >> -- >> >> *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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sat Jan 30 09:13:45 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:43:45 -0430 Subject: [governance] Updated IGC Membership list online: please check your status Message-ID: <4B643E99.90205@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Sat Jan 30 10:13:09 2010 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Wolfgang Benedek) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:13:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] Vote Message-ID: Yes, with groups Wolfgang Benedek -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sat Jan 30 10:55:43 2010 From: guru at itforchange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:25:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B64567F.5020000@itforchange.net> YES + thematic working groups thanks Guru ** "South India Regional Workshop on "Software Principles for the Public Sector, with focus on Public Education" - www.Public-Software.in Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open > consultation meeting, please vote now. At present the statement might > not pass the consensus call - not because there has been a lot of > opposition to it, but because the total number of responses is still > relatively low. > > Please also remember that we have another thread in which to discuss > the agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far there has been no response > to Parminder's suggestion of a theme on "Network Neutrality/Open > Internet". > > Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call. > Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to > clarify their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have yet > changed their vote. > > Please vote: > > *YES + thematic working groups *to accept the statement as shown here > *YES* to accept the statement without the [underlined passage] > *NO* to reject the statement > > *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting > of the IGF* > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the > continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a > multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public > policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended > for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe > should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of > incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an > institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally > convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a > Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of > Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to > the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the > composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should > be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also > believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the > selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to > be made more transparent. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the > participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the > substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might > not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the > IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take > place, care must be taken that this does not result in the > programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. > [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the > present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the > preparation of IGF meetings.]] > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards > the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to > "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements > (though many of our members would also support outputs of these > stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be > taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external > institutions through appropriate mechanisms. > > Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's > intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open > consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely > connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should > be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and > meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would > require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and > meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps > multi-stakeholder composition. > > [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop > background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes > selected to be taken up by the IGF.] > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, > which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from > civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage > with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > *About the IGC* > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide > spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively > engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up > to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is > to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance > policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers > to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about > our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. > > -- > > *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 tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Sat Jan 30 11:13:46 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 12:13:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <808a83f61001300813u3233dcc1l655d9b94b086a363@mail.gmail.com> Yes + thematic working groups On 1/30/10, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open consultation > meeting, please vote now. At present the statement might not pass the > consensus call - not because there has been a lot of opposition to it, but > because the total number of responses is still relatively low. > > Please also remember that we have another thread in which to discuss the > agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far there has been no response to > Parminder's suggestion of a theme on "Network Neutrality/Open Internet". > > Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call. > Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to clarify > their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have yet changed their > vote. > > Please vote: > > YES + thematic working groups to accept the statement as shown here > YES to accept the statement without the [underlined passage] > NO to reject the statement > > Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the > IGF > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of > the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the > discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, > the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of > adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the > IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an > institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by > the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under > contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs > (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a > different UN body such as the ITU. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition > of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly > divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the > stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, > and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of > stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF > meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though > in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). > If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not > result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in > stone. [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the > present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of > IGF meetings.]] > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the > development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" > rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of > our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever > form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are > transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate > mechanisms. > > Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's > intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open > consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely > connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a > better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to > present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to > set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open > membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background > material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken > up by the IGF.] > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which > reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil > society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and > participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > About the IGC > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide > spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in > internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World > Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global > public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now > comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have > subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at > http://www.igcaucus.org. > > -- > 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. > > -- Sent from my mobile device ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sat Jan 30 11:18:11 2010 From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Glaser) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:18:11 -0200 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B645BC3.2090304@nic.br> YES + thematic working groups ========================================= On 30/01/2010 07:32, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open > consultation meeting, please vote now. At present the statement might > not pass the consensus call - not because there has been a lot of > opposition to it, but because the total number of responses is still > relatively low. > > Please also remember that we have another thread in which to discuss > the agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far there has been no response > to Parminder's suggestion of a theme on "Network Neutrality/Open > Internet". > > Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call. > Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to > clarify their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have yet > changed their vote. > > Please vote: > > *YES + thematic working groups *to accept the statement as shown here > *YES* to accept the statement without the [underlined passage] > *NO* to reject the statement > > *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting > of the IGF* > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the > continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a > multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public > policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended > for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe > should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of > incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an > institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally > convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a > Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of > Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to > the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the > composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should > be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also > believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the > selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to > be made more transparent. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the > participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the > substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might > not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the > IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take > place, care must be taken that this does not result in the > programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. > [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the > present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the > preparation of IGF meetings.]] > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards > the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to > "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements > (though many of our members would also support outputs of these > stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be > taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external > institutions through appropriate mechanisms. > > Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's > intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open > consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely > connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should > be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and > meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would > require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and > meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps > multi-stakeholder composition. > > [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop > background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes > selected to be taken up by the IGF.] > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, > which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from > civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage > with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > *About the IGC* > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide > spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively > engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up > to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is > to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance > policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers > to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about > our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. > > -- > > *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 datos-personales.org Sat Jan 30 11:23:52 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:23:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: <4B64567F.5020000@itforchange.net> References: <4B64567F.5020000@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C13F07C-3DA2-44EF-9082-B4A7F407CC10@datos-personales.org> YES + thematic working groups ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cls at rkey.com Sat Jan 30 11:31:17 2010 From: cls at rkey.com (Craig Simon) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:31:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B645ED5.1000808@rkey.com> My vote: Yes. With themes. Craig Simon Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Sat Jan 30 12:03:11 2010 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:03:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: <4B645ED5.1000808@rkey.com> References: <4B645ED5.1000808@rkey.com> Message-ID: *Yes with thematics Aaron * On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Craig Simon wrote: > My vote: > Yes. With themes. > > Craig Simon > > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper Special Assistant The President ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jfcallo at isocperu.org Sat Jan 30 12:13:24 2010 From: jfcallo at isocperu.org (jfcallo at isocperu.org) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 12:13:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic In-Reply-To: <4B645BC3.2090304@nic.br> References: <4B645BC3.2090304@nic.br> Message-ID: <20100130121324.101k6qafg6s8k8ks@www.isocperu.org> Dears members: YES + thematic working groups *to accept the statement as shown here Jose F. Callo Romero Secretario ISOC Peru ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From balbornoz at flacso.org.ec Sat Jan 30 12:16:01 2010 From: balbornoz at flacso.org.ec (balbornoz at flacso.org.ec) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:16:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: <4B645BC3.2090304@nic.br> References: <4B645BC3.2090304@nic.br> Message-ID: <2118739643-1264871940-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-881310633-@bda017.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> YES + thematic working group Mensaje enviado desde mi terminal BlackBerry® de Porta -----Original Message----- From: Hartmut Glaser Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:18:11 To: ; Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working YES + thematic working groups ========================================= On 30/01/2010 07:32, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open > consultation meeting, please vote now. At present the statement might > not pass the consensus call - not because there has been a lot of > opposition to it, but because the total number of responses is still > relatively low. > > Please also remember that we have another thread in which to discuss > the agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far there has been no response > to Parminder's suggestion of a theme on "Network Neutrality/Open > Internet". > > Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call. > Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to > clarify their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have yet > changed their vote. > > Please vote: > > *YES + thematic working groups *to accept the statement as shown here > *YES* to accept the statement without the [underlined passage] > *NO* to reject the statement > > *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting > of the IGF* > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the > continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a > multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public > policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended > for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe > should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of > incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an > institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally > convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a > Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of > Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to > the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the > composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should > be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also > believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the > selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to > be made more transparent. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the > participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the > substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might > not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the > IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take > place, care must be taken that this does not result in the > programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. > [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the > present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the > preparation of IGF meetings.]] > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards > the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to > "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements > (though many of our members would also support outputs of these > stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be > taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external > institutions through appropriate mechanisms. > > Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's > intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open > consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely > connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should > be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and > meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would > require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and > meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps > multi-stakeholder composition. > > [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop > background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes > selected to be taken up by the IGF.] > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, > which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from > civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage > with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > *About the IGC* > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide > spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively > engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up > to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is > to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance > policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers > to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about > our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. > > -- > > *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. > -- Este mensaje ha sido analizado por MailScanner en busca de virus y otros contenidos peligrosos, y se considera que está limpio. For all your IT requirements visit: http://www.transtec.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Sat Jan 30 12:21:58 2010 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (Matthias C. Kettemann) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 12:21:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: <2118739643-1264871940-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-881310633-@bda017.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <4B645BC3.2090304@nic.br> <2118739643-1264871940-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-881310633-@bda017.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <4B646AB6.7000204@uni-graz.at> YES + thematic working group balbornoz at flacso.org.ec schrieb: > YES + thematic working group > > Mensaje enviado desde mi terminal BlackBerry® de Porta > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: * Hartmut Glaser > *Date: *Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:18:11 -0200 > *To: *; Jeremy Malcolm > *Subject: *Re: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + > thematic working > > > YES + thematic working groups > ========================================= > > On 30/01/2010 07:32, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open >> consultation meeting, please vote now. At present the statement >> might not pass the consensus call - not because there has been a lot >> of opposition to it, but because the total number of responses is >> still relatively low. >> >> Please also remember that we have another thread in which to discuss >> the agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far there has been no response >> to Parminder's suggestion of a theme on "Network Neutrality/Open >> Internet". >> >> Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call. >> Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to >> clarify their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have >> yet changed their vote. >> >> Please vote: >> >> *YES + thematic working groups *to accept the statement as shown here >> *YES* to accept the statement without the [underlined passage] >> *NO* to reject the statement >> >> *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting >> of the IGF* >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the >> continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a >> multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public >> policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended >> for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe >> should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of >> incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. >> >> None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an >> institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally >> convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and >> a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of >> Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to >> the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. >> >> One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the >> composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself >> should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many >> also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in >> the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should >> continue to be made more transparent. >> >> One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the >> participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the >> substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might >> not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about >> the IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not >> take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the >> programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. >> [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the >> present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the >> preparation of IGF meetings.]] >> >> The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards >> the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to >> "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements >> (though many of our members would also support outputs of these >> stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be >> taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external >> institutions through appropriate mechanisms. >> >> Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's >> intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open >> consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely >> connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there >> should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups >> and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This >> would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups >> and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and >> perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. >> >> [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop >> background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes >> selected to be taken up by the IGF.] >> >> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, >> which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from >> civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively >> engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed >> term. >> >> *About the IGC* >> >> The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a >> wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively >> engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up >> to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is >> to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance >> policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers >> to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about >> our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. >> >> -- >> >> *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. >> > > -- > Este mensaje ha sido analizado por *MailScanner* > > en busca de virus y otros contenidos peligrosos, > y se considera que está limpio. > MailScanner agradece a transtec Computers > por su apoyo. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Matthias C. Kettemann Harvard Law School LL.M. Class of 2010 29 Garden St, Apt # 604 Cambridge, MA 02138, USA M | +1 617 229 9015 E | mkettemann at llm10.law.harvard.edu Skype | matthiaskettemann FlickR | http://www.flickr.com/photos/mckettemann Facebook | http://www.facebook.com/matthias.kettemann -- Mag. iur. Matthias C. Kettemann Teaching and Research Fellow | Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter Institute of International Law and International Relations University of Graz Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria T | +43 316 380 6711 (office) M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobile) F | +43 316 380 9455 (fax) E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 30 12:22:24 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:22:24 +0500 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <701af9f71001300922s49aa299bm4b9e0e749fa1ccfa@mail.gmail.com> YES + thematic working groups On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Yes with thematics > > > ________________________________ > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Reply-To: , Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:32:34 +0800 > To: > Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working > groups, YES or NO > > If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open consultation > meeting, please vote now.  At present the statement might not pass the > consensus call - not because there has been a lot of opposition to it, but > because the total number of responses is still relatively low. > > Please also remember that we have another thread in which to discuss the > agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far there has been no response to > Parminder's suggestion of a theme on "Network Neutrality/Open Internet". > > Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call. >  Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to clarify > their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have yet changed their > vote. > > Please vote: > > YES + thematic working groups to accept the statement as shown here > YES to accept the statement without the [underlined passage] > NO to reject the statement > > Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the > IGF > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of > the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the > discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.  When, as we expect, > the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of > adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the > IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an > institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by > the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under > contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs > (UNDESA).  We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a > different UN body such as the ITU. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition > of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly > divided between the stakeholder groups.  Many also believe that the > stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, > and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of > stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF > meetings.  We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though > in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). >  If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not > result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in > stone.  [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the > present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of > IGF meetings.]] > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the > development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" > rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of > our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds).  Whatever > form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are > transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate > mechanisms. > > Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's > intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open > consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely > connected national and regional meetings.  In particular, there should be a > better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to > present their outputs to the IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to > set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open > membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background > material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken > up by the IGF.] > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which > reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil > society.  We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and > participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > About the IGC > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide > spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in > internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World > Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global > public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now > comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have > subscribed to its Charter.  More about our coalition can be found at > http://www.igcaucus.org. > -- > 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 > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Sat Jan 30 12:35:23 2010 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:35:23 -0300 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ca4162f1001300935i4351bcd7y568b2fd0fc1ab35e@mail.gmail.com> My vote: YES + thematic working groups And thanks again for the hard work done to prepare this. Best regards, Roxana 2010/1/30 Ian Peter > Yes with thematics > > > ------------------------------ > *From: *Jeremy Malcolm > *Reply-To: *, Jeremy Malcolm > > *Date: *Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:32:34 +0800 > *To: * > *Subject: *[governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic > working groups, YES or NO > > If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open consultation > meeting, please vote now. At present the statement might not pass the > consensus call - not because there has been a lot of opposition to it, but > because the total number of responses is still relatively low. > > Please also remember that we have another thread in which to discuss the > agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far there has been no response to > Parminder's suggestion of a theme on "Network Neutrality/Open Internet". > > Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call. > Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to clarify > their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have yet changed their > vote. > > Please vote: > > *YES + thematic working groups *to accept the statement as shown here > *YES* to accept the statement without the [underlined passage] > *NO* to reject the statement > > *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of > the IGF > * > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of > the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the > discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, > the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of > adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the > IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an > institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by > the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under > contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs > (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a > different UN body such as the ITU. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition > of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly > divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the > stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, > and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of > stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF > meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though > in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). > If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not > result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in > stone. [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the > present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of > IGF meetings.]] > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the > development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" > rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of > our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever > form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are > transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate > mechanisms. > > Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's > intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open > consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely > connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a > better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to > present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to > set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open > membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background > material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken > up by the IGF.] > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which > reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil > society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and > participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > *About the IGC > * > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide > spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in > internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World > Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global > public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now > comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have > subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at > http://www.igcaucus.org. > -- > *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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 toml at communisphere.com Sat Jan 30 12:37:02 2010 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 12:37:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working groups, YES or NO References: Message-ID: <04cf01caa1d2$d6baf060$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Yes. And thanks to all who contributed. Thomas Lowenhaupt ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeremy Malcolm To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 4:32 AM Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working groups, YES or NO If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open consultation meeting, please vote now. At present the statement might not pass the consensus call - not because there has been a lot of opposition to it, but because the total number of responses is still relatively low. Please also remember that we have another thread in which to discuss the agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far there has been no response to Parminder's suggestion of a theme on "Network Neutrality/Open Internet". Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call. Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to clarify their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have yet changed their vote. Please vote: YES + thematic working groups to accept the statement as shown here YES to accept the statement without the [underlined passage] NO to reject the statement Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings.]] The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF.] We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. About the IGC The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sat Jan 30 12:37:46 2010 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 02:37:46 +0900 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: <4B646AB6.7000204@uni-graz.at> References: <4B645BC3.2090304@nic.br> <2118739643-1264871940-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-881310633-@bda017.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4B646AB6.7000204@uni-graz.at> Message-ID: Hi, YES + thematic working group Rafik 2010/1/31 Matthias C. Kettemann > YES + thematic working group > > balbornoz at flacso.org.ec schrieb: > > YES + thematic working group > > Mensaje enviado desde mi terminal BlackBerry® de Porta > ------------------------------ > *From: * Hartmut Glaser > *Date: *Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:18:11 -0200 > *To: * ; Jeremy > Malcolm > *Subject: *Re: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic > working > > > YES + thematic working groups > > ========================================= > > On 30/01/2010 07:32, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open consultation > meeting, please vote now. At present the statement might not pass the > consensus call - not because there has been a lot of opposition to it, but > because the total number of responses is still relatively low. > > Please also remember that we have another thread in which to discuss the > agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far there has been no response to > Parminder's suggestion of a theme on "Network Neutrality/Open Internet". > > Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call. > Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to clarify > their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have yet changed their > vote. > > Please vote: > > *YES + thematic working groups *to accept the statement as shown here > *YES* to accept the statement without the [underlined passage] > *NO* to reject the statement > > *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of > the IGF* > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation > of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the > discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, > the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of > adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the > IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an > institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by > the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under > contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs > (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a > different UN body such as the ITU. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the > composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be > more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that > the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG > members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more > transparent. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation > of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of > IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year > (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude > that). If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does > not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in > stone. [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the > present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of > IGF meetings.]] > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the > development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" > rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of > our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever > form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are > transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate > mechanisms. > > Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's > intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open > consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely > connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a > better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to > present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to > set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open > membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop > background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected > to be taken up by the IGF.] > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, > which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil > society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and > participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > *About the IGC* > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide > spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in > internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World > Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global > public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now > comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have > subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at > http://www.igcaucus.org. > > -- > > *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. > > > -- > Este mensaje ha sido analizado por *MailScanner* > en busca de virus y otros contenidos peligrosos, > y se considera que está limpio. > MailScanner agradece a transtec Computers por > su apoyo. > > ------------------------------ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- > Matthias C. Kettemann > Harvard Law School > LL.M. Class of 2010 > > 29 Garden St, Apt # 604 > Cambridge, MA 02138, USA > > M | +1 617 229 9015 > E | mkettemann at llm10.law.harvard.edu > Skype | matthiaskettemann > FlickR | http://www.flickr.com/photos/mckettemann > Facebook | http://www.facebook.com/matthias.kettemann > > -- > > Mag. iur. Matthias C. Kettemann > Teaching and Research Fellow | Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter > > Institute of International Law and International Relations > University of Graz > Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen > Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz > > Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria > > T | +43 316 380 6711 (office) > M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobile) > F | +43 316 380 9455 (fax) > E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 graciela at nupef.org.br Sat Jan 30 12:45:35 2010 From: graciela at nupef.org.br (Graciela Selaimen) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 15:45:35 -0200 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B64703F.60800@nupef.org.br> Hi, I vote YES + thematic working groups. best, Graciela* * -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sat Jan 30 13:39:18 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:39:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] [Re-post] Consensus call on IGC statement: please In-Reply-To: <5FB35172-3919-467F-A33D-0A1C80DFF38F@ciroap.org> References: <5FB35172-3919-467F-A33D-0A1C80DFF38F@ciroap.org> Message-ID: YES + Thematic working groups I would also like to state formally a concern about the sentence: > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition > of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly > divided between the stakeholder groups. as I was prepared to accept the evidence offered for an existing reasonably even distribution. Deirdre On 29 January 2010 08:03, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Reposted as previously, with minor changes as follows: > * one sentence struck out (or in double square brackets if your mail client > does not show striking out) > * one added paragraph underlined (or in single square brackets if your mail > client does not show underlining) > Please vote: > YES + thematic working groups to accept the statement as shown here > YES to accept the statement without underlined passage > NO to reject the statement > Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the > IGF > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of > the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the > discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.  When, as we expect, > the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of > adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the > IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an > institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by > the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under > contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs > (UNDESA).  We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a > different UN body such as the ITU. > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition > of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly > divided between the stakeholder groups.  Many also believe that the > stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, > and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of > stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF > meetings.  We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though > in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). >  If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not > result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in > stone.  [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the > present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of > IGF meetings.]] > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the > development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" > rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of > our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds).  Whatever > form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are > transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate > mechanisms. > Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's > intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open > consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely > connected national and regional meetings.  In particular, there should be a > better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to > present their outputs to the IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to > set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open > membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background > material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken > up by the IGF.] > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which > reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil > society.  We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and > participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > About the IGC > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide > spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in > internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World > Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global > public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now > comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have > subscribed to its Charter.  More about our coalition can be found > at http://www.igcaucus.org. > > -- > > 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 wcurrie at apc.org Sat Jan 30 13:57:23 2010 From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 20:57:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working Message-ID: <4B648113.4080509@apc.org> yes + thematic working groups willie currie ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at cis-india.org Sat Jan 30 14:26:33 2010 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 00:56:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Re-post] Consensus call on IGC statement: please In-Reply-To: References: <5FB35172-3919-467F-A33D-0A1C80DFF38F@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B6487E9.7050902@cis-india.org> Yes + thematic working groups. Anja On Sunday 31 January 2010 12:09 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > YES + Thematic working groups > > I would also like to state formally a concern about the sentence: >> One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition >> of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly >> divided between the stakeholder groups. > as I was prepared to accept the evidence offered for an existing > reasonably even distribution. > > Deirdre > > On 29 January 2010 08:03, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Reposted as previously, with minor changes as follows: >> * one sentence struck out (or in double square brackets if your mail client >> does not show striking out) >> * one added paragraph underlined (or in single square brackets if your mail >> client does not show underlining) >> Please vote: >> YES + thematic working groups to accept the statement as shown here >> YES to accept the statement without underlined passage >> NO to reject the statement >> Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the >> IGF >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of >> the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the >> discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, >> the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of >> adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the >> IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. >> None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an >> institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by >> the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under >> contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs >> (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a >> different UN body such as the ITU. >> One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition >> of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly >> divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the >> stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, >> and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. >> One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of >> stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF >> meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though >> in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). >> If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not >> result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in >> stone. [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the >> present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of >> IGF meetings.]] >> The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the >> development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" >> rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of >> our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever >> form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are >> transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate >> mechanisms. >> Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's >> intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open >> consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely >> connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a >> better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to >> present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to >> set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open >> membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. >> [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background >> material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken >> up by the IGF.] >> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which >> reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil >> society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and >> participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. >> About the IGC >> The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide >> spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in >> internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World >> Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global >> public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now >> comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have >> subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found >> at http://www.igcaucus.org. >> >> -- >> >> 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 vanda at uol.com.br Sat Jan 30 15:01:06 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (vanda) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:01:06 -0200 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: <4ca4162f1001300935i4351bcd7y568b2fd0fc1ab35e@mail.gmail.com> References: <4ca4162f1001300935i4351bcd7y568b2fd0fc1ab35e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4b649002f2f5d_4aae4b766c1d4@weasel20.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 amedinagomez at gmail.com Sat Jan 30 15:24:02 2010 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 15:24:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] YES + thematic working groups Message-ID: <2bd2431a1001301224x27200c17n3a899e890e2cd14f@mail.gmail.com> YES + thematic working groups -- Antonio Medina Gomez Presidente Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet. ACUI presidencia at acui.org.co amedinagomez at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cpsr at ewilliger.com Sat Jan 30 15:26:43 2010 From: cpsr at ewilliger.com (e-cpsr) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 12:26:43 -0800 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If i'm not too late, i vote "Yes + thematics". Thank you. -- eden ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From langdonorr at gmail.com Sat Jan 30 15:44:11 2010 From: langdonorr at gmail.com (Cheryl Langdon-Orr) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 07:44:11 +1100 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <904113ab1001301244y7245942bk924ee968d262b283@mail.gmail.com> YES + thematic working groups * * *CLO * 2010/1/30 Jeremy Malcolm > If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open consultation > meeting, please vote now. At present the statement might not pass the > consensus call - not because there has been a lot of opposition to it, but > because the total number of responses is still relatively low. > > Please also remember that we have another thread in which to discuss the > agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far there has been no response to > Parminder's suggestion of a theme on "Network Neutrality/Open Internet". > > Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call. > Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to clarify > their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have yet changed their > vote. > > Please vote: > > *YES + thematic working groups *to accept the statement as shown here > *YES* to accept the statement without the [underlined passage] > *NO* to reject the statement > > *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of > the IGF* > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of > the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the > discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, > the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of > adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the > IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an > institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by > the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under > contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs > (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a > different UN body such as the ITU. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition > of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly > divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the > stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, > and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of > stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF > meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though > in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). > If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not > result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in > stone. [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the > present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of > IGF meetings.]] > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the > development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" > rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of > our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever > form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are > transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate > mechanisms. > > Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's > intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open > consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely > connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a > better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to > present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to > set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open > membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background > material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken > up by the IGF.] > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which > reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil > society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and > participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > *About the IGC* > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide > spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in > internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World > Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global > public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now > comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have > subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at > http://www.igcaucus.org. > > -- > > *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 > -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sat Jan 30 16:34:24 2010 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:34:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: <904113ab1001301244y7245942bk924ee968d262b283@mail.gmail.com> References: <904113ab1001301244y7245942bk924ee968d262b283@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <389362190-1264887268-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1886510239-@bda667.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Yes+working groups Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device available from bmobile. -----Original Message----- From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 07:44:11 To: ; Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working YES + thematic working groups * * *CLO * 2010/1/30 Jeremy Malcolm > If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open consultation > meeting, please vote now. At present the statement might not pass the > consensus call - not because there has been a lot of opposition to it, but > because the total number of responses is still relatively low. > > Please also remember that we have another thread in which to discuss the > agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far there has been no response to > Parminder's suggestion of a theme on "Network Neutrality/Open Internet". > > Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call. > Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to clarify > their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have yet changed their > vote. > > Please vote: > > *YES + thematic working groups *to accept the statement as shown here > *YES* to accept the statement without the [underlined passage] > *NO* to reject the statement > > *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of > the IGF* > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of > the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the > discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, > the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of > adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the > IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an > institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by > the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under > contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs > (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a > different UN body such as the ITU. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition > of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly > divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the > stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, > and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of > stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF > meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though > in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). > If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not > result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in > stone. [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the > present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of > IGF meetings.]] > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the > development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" > rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of > our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever > form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are > transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate > mechanisms. > > Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's > intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open > consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely > connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a > better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to > present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to > set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open > membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background > material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken > up by the IGF.] > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which > reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil > society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and > participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > *About the IGC* > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide > spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in > internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World > Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global > public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now > comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have > subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at > http://www.igcaucus.org. > > -- > > *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 > -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amedinagomez at gmail.com Sat Jan 30 16:42:31 2010 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:42:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: <389362190-1264887268-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1886510239-@bda667.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <904113ab1001301244y7245942bk924ee968d262b283@mail.gmail.com> <389362190-1264887268-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1886510239-@bda667.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <2bd2431a1001301342w2fbf1b3axcef3f79c89405b61@mail.gmail.com> *YES + thematic working groups* Antonio Medina Gomez Presidente Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet. ACUI presidencia at acui.org.co amedinagomez at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From francoise.massit at voxinternet.fr Sat Jan 30 16:52:38 2010 From: francoise.massit at voxinternet.fr (vox internet) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:52:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE yes Message-ID: <6AB0038B-42CA-4281-BBE0-C0215AC99184@voxinternet.fr> yes + working groups Francoise Massit-Folléa Responsable scientifique Projet Vox Internet II Fondation Maison des Sciences de l'Homme (Paris) www.voxinternet.org f.massit at orange.fr francoise.massit at voxinternet.fr Tel. 06 74 51 67 65 - merci de ne plus utiliser l'adresse (at) ens-lsh.fr - ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sat Jan 30 18:11:35 2010 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 23:11:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: <4B645BC3.2090304@nic.br> References: <4B645BC3.2090304@nic.br> Message-ID: <7C74D8BF-4E7B-49AD-A443-DFB08DF20734@st-kilda.org> Yes + Thematic groups f ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Sat Jan 30 18:51:48 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 15:51:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: <4B641B60.8030901@gmail.com> References: <4B641B60.8030901@gmail.com> Message-ID: <43594.37464.qm@web55205.mail.re4.yahoo.com>   Challenge the challenges Rewrite the rules....Push the limits Know only that you can be limitless Yes + thematics. Thanks everyone   Shaila Rao Mistry Jeremy Malcolm wrote: If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open consultation meeting, please vote now.  At present the statement might not pass the consensus call - not because there has been a lot of opposition to it, but because the total number of responses is still relatively low. > > >Please also remember that we have another thread in which to discuss the agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far there has been no response to Parminder's suggestion of a theme on "Network Neutrality/Open Internet".  > > >Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call.  Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to clarify their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have yet changed their vote. > > >Please vote: > > >YES + thematic working groups to accept the statement as shown here >YES to accept the statement without the [underlined passage] >NO to reject the statement > > >Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF > > >The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.  When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > >None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA).  We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. > > >One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups.  Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. > > >One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings.  We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that).  If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone.  [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings.]] > > >The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds).  Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. > > >Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and regional meetings.  In particular, there should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > >[The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF.] > > >We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society.  We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > >About the IGC > > >The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter.  More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org.  > >--  >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 shailam at yahoo.com Sat Jan 30 18:52:44 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 15:52:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fw: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: <4B641B60.8030901@gmail.com> References: <4B641B60.8030901@gmail.com> Message-ID: <138217.68901.qm@web55203.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Yes + thematics. Thanks everyone   Shaila Rao Mistry Jeremy Malcolm wrote: If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open consultation meeting, please vote now.  At present the statement might not pass the consensus call - not because there has been a lot of opposition to it, but because the total number of responses is still relatively low. > > >Please also remember that we have another thread in which to discuss the agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far there has been no response to Parminder's suggestion of a theme on "Network Neutrality/Open Internet".  > > >Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call.  Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to clarify their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have yet changed their vote. > > >Please vote: > > >YES + thematic working groups to accept the statement as shown here >YES to accept the statement without the [underlined passage] >NO to reject the statement > > >Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF > > >The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.  When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > >None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA).  We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. > > >One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups.  Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. > > >One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings.  We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that).  If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone.  [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings.]] > > >The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds).  Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. > > >Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and regional meetings.  In particular, there should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > >[The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF.] > > >We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society.  We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > >About the IGC > > >The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter.  More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org.  > >--  >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 Sat Jan 30 19:10:34 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 08:10:34 +0800 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2A87DB05-657A-44EF-A08B-63E63BA568EA@ciroap.org> On 31/01/2010, at 4:26 AM, e-cpsr wrote: > If i'm not too late, i vote "Yes + thematics". On my reckoning you are not too late, you have until 31/01/10 07:51:12 GMT/UTC. Thank you everyone who has voted so far! -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Jan 30 23:33:32 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 23:33:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] RE: Vote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CBCF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Yes, with groups Lee McKnight ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Jan 31 00:46:13 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:46:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Vote Message-ID: <947710.22611.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> My vote is YES + Multiple Groups One for Gov. One for Technical Communities One for Civil Society and Intenet Users And a permanent Office and staff including Directors and Coordinator staff. Thanks Imran Ahmed Shah [+92 3004130617] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Jan 31 01:11:49 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 11:41:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello This statement does not quite say what needs to be said, does not emphasize what needs to be emphasized while saying in places what ought not to be said or what might better be avoided. With all due respect for the IGC, its Coordinators and all its participants, I abstain. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://www.isocmadras.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open consultation > meeting, please vote now. At present the statement might not pass the > consensus call - not because there has been a lot of opposition to it, but > because the total number of responses is still relatively low. > > Please also remember that we have another thread in which to discuss the > agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far there has been no response to > Parminder's suggestion of a theme on "Network Neutrality/Open Internet". > > Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call. > Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to clarify > their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have yet changed their > vote. > > Please vote: > > *YES + thematic working groups *to accept the statement as shown here > *YES* to accept the statement without the [underlined passage] > *NO* to reject the statement > > *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of > the IGF* > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of > the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the > discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, > the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of > adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the > IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an > institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by > the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under > contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs > (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a > different UN body such as the ITU. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition > of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly > divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the > stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, > and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of > stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF > meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though > in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). > If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not > result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in > stone. [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the > present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of > IGF meetings.]] > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the > development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" > rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of > our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever > form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are > transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate > mechanisms. > > Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's > intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open > consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely > connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a > better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to > present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to > set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open > membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background > material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken > up by the IGF.] > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which > reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil > society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and > participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > *About the IGC* > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide > spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in > internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World > Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global > public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now > comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have > subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at > http://www.igcaucus.org. > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer > rights around the world. > *http://www.consumersinternational.org/50* > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Jan 31 01:52:23 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:52:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <143936.72442.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> I notice that my vote was not posted to the list. My vote was sent a day ago ... Vote was Yes + Thematic Shaila Rao Mistry Challenge the challenges! Rewrite the rules....Push the limits Know only........... you are limitless ________________________________ From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Sat, January 30, 2010 10:11:49 PM Subject: Re: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working Hello This statement does not quite say what needs to be said, does not emphasize what needs to be emphasized while saying in places what ought not to be said or what might better be avoided. With all due respect for the IGC, its Coordinators and all its participants, I abstain. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://www.isocmadras.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open consultation meeting, please vote now. At present the statement might not pass the consensus call - not because there has been a lot of opposition to it, but because the total number of responses is still relatively low. > > >Please also remember that we have another thread in which to discuss the agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far there has been no response to Parminder's suggestion of a theme on "Network Neutrality/Open Internet". > > >Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call. Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to clarify their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have yet changed their vote. > > >Please vote: > > >YES + thematic working groups to accept the statement as shown here >YES to accept the statement without the [underlined passage] >NO to reject the statement > > >Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the SharmelSheikh meeting of the IGF > > >The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > >None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. > > >One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. > > >One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings.]] > > >The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. > > >Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF'sintersessional work program, which is currently limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > >[The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF.] > > >We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > >About the IGC > > >The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. > >-- >Jeremy Malcolm >Project Coordinator >Consumers International >KualaLumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >Lot 5-1 WismaWIM, 7 JalanAbangHajiOpeng, TTDI, 60000 KualaLumpur, Malaysia >Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >CI is 50 >Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. >Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. >http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 > >Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 31 02:05:40 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:05:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD In-Reply-To: References: <94032900-958C-48C4-8C70-2DC7A2D0D184@arin.net> Message-ID: Hi Bill, On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:45 PM, William Drake wrote: > McTim > > On Jan 28, 2010, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: > > [snip]  All very interesting, albeit not entirely trainable sans tech training > >> Wouldn't an IGF main session on IPv6 sub-netting and architecture be >> more useful than human rights and a development agenda for IG if we >> really want to put out these fires? > > If by useful you mean inducing hundreds of people to simultaneously get up for a coffee break or try to check their mail, sure.  Otherwise, no.  Not the purpose of an IGF main session. > > What would be useful though would be for there to be a regularized stream of properly calibrated techie tutorial sessions available alongside the workshops, open forums, etc for people who want to know more.  I've never understood why ISOC or the various administrative bodies don't do this. I count at least 6 wkshps on IPv6 or IP addressing listed here: http://igf.wgig.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2009ListView Perhaps the various administrative bodies are busy wuth these. >Personally, I don't know beans about IPv6 sub-netting, but would like to.  If someone who actually knows how to teach folks who aren't trained in computer science or electrical engineering were to offer a nice walk through, I'd show up, and I doubt I'm alone. Since this is right in my wheelhouse, I will gladly volunteer to do this. I'll leave the funding of my trip to you ;-) > > Beyond network basics, I really wish ICANN offered a regularized set of sessions that walk through its processes and the issues it deals with in a bit of depth.  An hour and half open forum in which one gets a quick surface skim of some current developments just doesn't fill the need, especially for anyone who might be contemplating getting involved for the first time.  ICANN's sink or swim, just figure it out approach to newbie outreach is a total, intergalactic disaster with a wide range of negative effects. As for IPv4/v4, the IANA bits could be folded into the above workshop. Does IGC want to propose this wkshp? I am sure we can get the IANA/NRO/ISOC folk on board as co-sponsors! -- 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 tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Sun Jan 31 02:08:11 2010 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 08:08:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: <904113ab1001301244y7245942bk924ee968d262b283@mail.gmail.com> References: <904113ab1001301244y7245942bk924ee968d262b283@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2FE953A930544C3DB2021532B4A87EA2@MTBJ> Yes + Thematic Working Groups ------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Président de la CIC Fédération Mondiale des Organisations d'Ingénieurs Tél : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 860 861 ------------------------------------------------------------ _____ De : Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com] Envoyé : samedi 30 janvier 2010 21:44 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm Objet : Re: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working YES + thematic working groups CLO 2010/1/30 Jeremy Malcolm If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open consultation meeting, please vote now. At present the statement might not pass the consensus call - not because there has been a lot of opposition to it, but because the total number of responses is still relatively low. Please also remember that we have another thread in which to discuss the agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far there has been no response to Parminder's suggestion of a theme on "Network Neutrality/Open Internet". Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call. Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to clarify their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have yet changed their vote. Please vote: YES + thematic working groups to accept the statement as shown here YES to accept the statement without the [underlined passage] NO to reject the statement Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings.]] The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF.] We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. About the IGC The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. -- 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 -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) Ce message entrant est certifié sans virus connu. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 8.5.432 / Base de données virale: 271.1.1/2657 - Date: 01/30/10 07:35:00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 31 02:56:49 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:56:49 +0800 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The below comments from Siva to my mind say what needs to be said, emphasizes what needs to be emphasized while not saying in places what ought not to be said and is better left avoided ;-) So, I concur and with similar due respect etc. and not having had the time for direct intervention or for the necessary close attention, I also abstain. M -----Original Message----- From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 2:12 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working Hello This statement does not quite say what needs to be said, does not emphasize what needs to be emphasized while saying in places what ought not to be said or what might better be avoided. With all due respect for the IGC, its Coordinators and all its participants, I abstain. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://www.isocmadras.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open consultation meeting, please vote now. At present the statement might not pass the consensus call - not because there has been a lot of opposition to it, but because the total number of responses is still relatively low. Please also remember that we have another thread in which to discuss the agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far there has been no response to Parminder's suggestion of a theme on "Network Neutrality/Open Internet". Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call. Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to clarify their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have yet changed their vote. Please vote: YES + thematic working groups to accept the statement as shown here YES to accept the statement without the [underlined passage] NO to reject the statement Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings.]] The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF.] We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. About the IGC The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 31 02:59:48 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:59:48 +0800 Subject: [governance] Preliminary results of consensus call on IGC statement for February IGF open consultation Message-ID: <575BB2F5-33E3-4D39-982F-AE38C7BC4D50@ciroap.org> I am not calling a result yet, because I need to discuss with Ginger. However, as indication of participation, my count says that after removing duplicate votes and accounting for changed votes (mainly from YES to YES + thematic working groups), we have had 39 votes for YES + thematic working groups, 3 YES votes, 3 NO votes, and one abstention. Of these, seven YES + thematic working groups votes, and one YES vote, were from non-members and have to be disregarded. This takes us down to 32 valid YES + thematic working groups votes, 2 valid YES votes and 3 valid NO votes plus the abstention. This is a participation rate of 37/181 or just over 20%. This sounds poor, but is actually about average for us. All of the valid NO votes were stated to be on process grounds, but (after some necessary clarification off-list), were also on substantive grounds; ie. they would not have agreed with the final statement even if they had been completely satisfied with the process by which it was drafted. I expect to call a result soon after discussing with Ginger. The result will be subject to appeal. -- 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 Sun Jan 31 03:06:32 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:06:32 +0800 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8312F75E-0A4C-45AF-B302-F1C7D4EBE9E0@ciroap.org> On 31/01/2010, at 3:56 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > The below comments from Siva to my mind say what needs to be said, emphasizes what needs to be emphasized while not saying in places what ought not to be said and is better left avoided ;-) > > So, I concur and with similar due respect etc. and not having had the time for direct intervention or for the necessary close attention, I also abstain. Sorry Michael, I posted a message to the list just before receiving your abstention. Regrettably there is a bit of a discrepancy with timestamps (the CPSR server seems to be timestamping mails too early which suggests that both my email and yours were sent before the deadline closed). Whilst it doesn't really matter since the vote was an abstention, I propose to give it the benefit of the doubt and revise the final tally as follows: 32 valid YES + thematic working groups votes, 2 valid YES votes, 3 valid NO votes, and 2 valid abstentions. -- 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 Sun Jan 31 03:40:27 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:40:27 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <70FD511F-C8D9-4E7B-9113-B0E9047C94FB@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B62BA33.6070908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <690339E1-04A1-477B-B58A-2D7532BCD3A8@ciroap.org> On 29/01/2010, at 6:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > So, let's get to work on such a statement now. I don't think it needs to be very long, and indeed we could just put forward some bullet points for Ginger to elaborate upon on the day. So far we have on the table the following substantive themes: > > * Human rights > * Development agenda > * Network neutrality/Open Internet > > Comments, please, particularly on the last of these which Parminder has just introduced? With just over a week to go there have still been no comments on this thread so far, so I will try to summarise some of the arguments that are usually made for and against this theme, as a way of kick-starting discussion: FOR: Network neutrality (or "open Internet") emphasises the interest of Internet users in being able, by default, to access content, services and applications free from corporate or governmental interference (though there are cases in which compelling interests may require exceptions to this general principle). Network neutrality also stands for the treatment of intermediaries (again, by default) as conduits for information, rather than gatekeepers who bear liability for the content they carry. AGAINST: Network neutrality is a confusing phrase with many different meanings to different people. For example it is still wrongly thought of as preventing individual network operators from managing their bandwidth, which will only lead to misunderstandings in Vilnius (like the arguments over whether "critical Internet resources" includes electricity). On the other hand "Open Internet" doesn't seem to add anything to the existing "Openness" theme, so why not just keep using that existing theme instead? -- 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 charlespmok at gmail.com Sun Jan 31 03:51:00 2010 From: charlespmok at gmail.com (Charles Mok (gmail)) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:51:00 +0800 Subject: [governance] Vote In-Reply-To: <947710.22611.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <947710.22611.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7cd8c34e1001310051n23248d06p9ee149eaec2b9@mail.gmail.com> On 1/31/10, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > My vote is > YES + Multiple Groups > One for Gov. > One for Technical Communities > One for Civil Society and Intenet Users > And a permanent Office and staff including Directors and Coordinator staff. > Thanks > Imran Ahmed Shah > [+92 3004130617] > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 《可惡！讓我翻牆出去說，中國網絡開放自由！》 - http://www.hkej.com/template/forum/php/forum_details.php?blog_posts_id=43837 Join Internet Society Hong Kong 加入香港互聯網協會 -- https://www.isoc.hk/membership_1.html Blog: www.charlesmok.hk ; Facebook/Twitter: charlesmok ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From charlespmok at gmail.com Sun Jan 31 03:52:03 2010 From: charlespmok at gmail.com (Charles Mok (gmail)) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:52:03 +0800 Subject: [governance] Vote In-Reply-To: <947710.22611.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <947710.22611.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7cd8c34e1001310052o6d82feb6ob07ecf2bec7d39a6@mail.gmail.com> On 1/31/10, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > My vote is > YES + Multiple Groups > One for Gov. > One for Technical Communities > One for Civil Society and Intenet Users > And a permanent Office and staff including Directors and Coordinator staff. > Thanks > Imran Ahmed Shah > [+92 3004130617] > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 《可惡！讓我翻牆出去說，中國網絡開放自由！》 - http://www.hkej.com/template/forum/php/forum_details.php?blog_posts_id=43837 Join Internet Society Hong Kong 加入香港互聯網協會 -- https://www.isoc.hk/membership_1.html Blog: www.charlesmok.hk ; Facebook/Twitter: charlesmok ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 31 04:21:45 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:21:45 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <690339E1-04A1-477B-B58A-2D7532BCD3A8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I¹d certainly like to see network neutrality/ open internet advanced as a theme, and seeing net neutrality can be so confusing I¹d like to see open Internet added after it. IGC co sponsored a very successful three hour workshop on this at Sharm with Diplo. There are many issues, content neutrality probably sitting highest in my mind. Its worthy of a main session as the current main session themes we have repeated for some years are getting a little tired. And yes we should continue to support the human rights and development agendas. We need to find a way to overcome the block on rights discussions which was evident last year ­ if anyone has suggestions on how we might achieve this I would be interested. From: Jeremy Malcolm Reply-To: , Jeremy Malcolm Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:40:27 +0800 To: Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius On 29/01/2010, at 6:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > So, let's get to work on such a statement now. I don't think it needs to be > very long, and indeed we could just put forward some bullet points for Ginger > to elaborate upon on the day. So far we have on the table the following > substantive themes: > > * Human rights > * Development agenda > * Network neutrality/Open Internet > > Comments, please, particularly on the last of these which Parminder has just > introduced? With just over a week to go there have still been no comments on this thread so far, so I will try to summarise some of the arguments that are usually made for and against this theme, as a way of kick-starting discussion: FOR: Network neutrality (or "open Internet") emphasises the interest of Internet users in being able, by default, to access content, services and applications free from corporate or governmental interference (though there are cases in which compelling interests may require exceptions to this general principle). Network neutrality also stands for the treatment of intermediaries (again, by default) as conduits for information, rather than gatekeepers who bear liability for the content they carry. AGAINST: Network neutrality is a confusing phrase with many different meanings to different people. For example it is still wrongly thought of as preventing individual network operators from managing their bandwidth, which will only lead to misunderstandings in Vilnius (like the arguments over whether "critical Internet resources" includes electricity). On the other hand "Open Internet" doesn't seem to add anything to the existing "Openness" theme, so why not just keep using that existing theme instead? -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 31 04:38:19 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:38:19 +0800 Subject: [governance] Process issues for future consensus calls Message-ID: <7048891E-4BE3-4FCB-9E9C-FD7DCEE19FEF@ciroap.org> Bill Drake (and McTim) earlier questioned my handling of the just-concluded drafting exercise and consensus call, and Bill and I continued that discussion off-list. He suggested I bring it back on list, so I am going to summarise the underlying issues between us here (rather than, as in our off-list discussion, going through why I did or didn't include such-and-such a comment in mind-numbing detail). As coordinator of this caucus, as in other groups I have led, I will seek to draft text using a modified "lazy consensus" approach that incorporates these steps: * Has text suggested on the list drawn, or could it realistically draw, any support other than from its proponent? (This is not an onerous test to pass.) * If so, does it contradict the views of a significant number of other members that remain strongly held despite an adequate period of discussion, such that it is unlikely that a rough consensus could emerge? * If so, suggest compromise text that could satisfy both camps where possible. * If this is not possible or neither camp is satisfied with the compromise, omit text on this issue from the statement altogether. * Otherwise, include the text. * My standard for including changes becomes more stringent when the last text prior to consensus call is posted, and still more so during the consensus call (when it is basically limited to correcting errors). Bill differs from me on this process. He will correct me if I mischaracterise his views, but I understand he prefers that all suggestions for changes (even contradictory ones) should be included in the text in brackets, and not removed until a specific (non-lazy) consensus emerges. Moreover if substantive changes are called for even after a consensus call, and there is sufficient time to re-open for discussion, the call should be rescinded. It may be possible for technology to come to our aid here, in that we could experiment with collectively drafting documents online without the need for confusing exchanges of emails with many bracketed sections, as Bill's approach would (in my view) have required in this case. If there is any interest in discussing these issues, this will be the thread in which to do 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 31 05:49:05 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:19:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B656021.2010309@itforchange.net> Ian Peter wrote: > I'd certainly like to see network neutrality/ open internet advanced > as a theme, and seeing net neutrality can be so confusing I'd like to > see open Internet added after it. > > IGC co sponsored a very successful three hour workshop on this at > Sharm with Diplo. There are many issues, content neutrality probably > sitting highest in my mind. Its worthy of a main session as the > current main session themes we have repeated for some years are > getting a little tired. In fact the stated workshop has done quite a good compilation of its discussions, and as a co-sponsor of the workshop we should seek a full main session on this theme. If US considers NN as the key Internet policy issue right now, it could hardly be otherwise for the rest of the world. I find it rather repugnant that we should wait for FCC of US to pronounce its verdict on NN, and define it, and rest of us adopt it by default. This is what i call as the dangerous new age imperialism facilitated by the digital one-ness of the world, which is controlled closely by some dominant actors - countries and companies, and rest of us are supposes to sit back and 'enjoy' the immense benefaction that is bestowed on us in from of new ICTs. On the main theme on development agenda, I think there have been enough right noises last year that such a call may get accepted. There also has been a 3 hour workshop on it last time. I think the whole idea of what are the differential interests of developing countries in the new socio-political digital landscape is perhaps the single most important issue that needs to be worked on at present. So we should certainly call for a 'development agenda in IG' main session. > > And yes we should continue to support the human rights and development > agendas. We need to find a way to overcome the block on rights > discussions which was evident last year -- While I myself suggested the 'Internet and human rights' agenda, there is a certain complexity here. This is the year where states will vie - the more active actors certainly will - to get some text written in the decree for IGF renewal as per their interests and priorities. I do fear that more we harp on human rights the chances are, and i merely speculate here, and do invite comments, that some countries would insist bringing in text like 'all issues like human rights, global warming etc which have a clear home in the UN system for discussion should be discussed at appropriate forums and IGF should only .......'. I do think that any such text will be very very difficult to get through, and will be strongly resisted by US, EU etc, but what if it becomes a bargaining chip for voting for renewal at all or not... Again, speculation, but thought I would put my thoughts out for consideration of IGC members. On the other hand, though with a nil chance of acceptance of a main session on 'HR and the Internet', I do believe that all such CS struggles are long haul, and every year at least chipping a bit is needed, which could be a justification for us calling for such a main session for IGF Vilnius. > if anyone has suggestions on how we might achieve this I would be > interested. I think the way to do it is to position positive rights vis a vis the Internet right up there along with negative (formal) rights, and make developing countries see that we really mean to look at all aspects, really seriously. But I think for that, we have some way to go within the CS itself, but that is the direction we should be aiming at. Parminder > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *Jeremy Malcolm > *Reply-To: *, Jeremy Malcolm > > *Date: *Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:40:27 +0800 > *To: * > *Subject: *[governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius > > On 29/01/2010, at 6:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > So, let's get to work on such a statement now. I don't think it > needs to be very long, and indeed we could just put forward some > bullet points for Ginger to elaborate upon on the day. So far we > have on the table the following substantive themes: > > * Human rights > * Development agenda > * Network neutrality/Open Internet > > Comments, please, particularly on the last of these which > Parminder has just introduced? > > > With just over a week to go there have still been no comments on this > thread so far, so I will try to summarise some of the arguments that > are usually made for and against this theme, as a way of kick-starting > discussion: > > FOR: > > Network neutrality (or "open Internet") emphasises the interest of > Internet users in being able, by default, to access content, services > and applications free from corporate or governmental interference > (though there are cases in which compelling interests may require > exceptions to this general principle). Network neutrality also stands > for the treatment of intermediaries (again, by default) as conduits > for information, rather than gatekeepers who bear liability for the > content they carry. > > AGAINST: > > Network neutrality is a confusing phrase with many different meanings > to different people. For example it is still wrongly thought of as > preventing individual network operators from managing their bandwidth, > which will only lead to misunderstandings in Vilnius (like the > arguments over whether "critical Internet resources" includes > electricity). On the other hand "Open Internet" doesn't seem to add > anything to the existing "Openness" theme, so why not just keep using > that existing theme instead? > -- > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > *Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > *CI is 50 > *Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer > movement in 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect > consumer rights around the world. > _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50__ > > _ > Read our email confidentiality notice > > > . Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hindenburgo at gmail.com Sun Jan 31 07:13:47 2010 From: hindenburgo at gmail.com (Hindenburgo Pires) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:13:47 -0200 Subject: [governance] RE: Vote In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CBCF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CBCF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3ef75b781001310413j48823c6bo8ccac258dbba2d86@mail.gmail.com> I Vote Yes 2010/1/31 Lee W McKnight > Yes, with groups > > Lee McKnight > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Hindenburgo Francisco Pires Professor Adjunto do Departamento de Geografia Humana Instituto de Geografia • Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - UERJ Rua São Francisco Xavier, 524 - 4º andar - bloco D - sala 4031 • Maracanã Rio de Janeiro - RJ, CEP: 20550-013 | tel/fax: (21) 2254-2542 / 2334-0036 / 2334-0614 http://www.cibergeo.org/artigos/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Jan 31 07:18:18 2010 From: hongxueipr at gmail.com (Hong Xue) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:18:18 +0800 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: <0BA40163-10C4-4CD5-94CD-6E7699335E09@ciroap.org> References: <0BA40163-10C4-4CD5-94CD-6E7699335E09@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <54535d541001310418n341380fdkfc2014f2fc7a04eb@mail.gmail.com> Could you use a voting system? It looks spams when hundreds of people sending in votes by emails. Hong On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 30/01/2010, at 5:51 PM, William Drake wrote: > >>>> I am at the same time coordinating a drafting team in the GNSO, on the AoC implementation plan.  When corporate lobbyists or others ask that language be included, I don't take it upon myself to decide this gets in, this stays out, this I'll reword to suit my views rather than those of the person who made the suggestion—even if I strongly disagree with it.  If there's no obvious consensus it goes in brackets and then we try to work it out.  We used to do things that way in the IGC, and I don't recall us deciding on a more centralized approach. >>> >>> We will welcome your nomination for coordinator next time, Bill. >> >> Thank you for responding to my concerns so seriously, Jeremy.  Really befits the co-coordinator role. > > As you know, I did in fact respond to them off-list, prior to you posting this message, because I took exception to your suggestion that I was not approaching this exercise in good faith, but deciding what text to include or exclude based on my personal views.  You have since suggested that I post our off-list discussion back to the list, and I might well do that once I have written a response to your latest. > > -- > 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 -- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University www.iipl.org.cn 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hindenburgo at gmail.com Sun Jan 31 07:28:35 2010 From: hindenburgo at gmail.com (Hindenburgo Pires) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:28:35 -0200 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: <54535d541001310418n341380fdkfc2014f2fc7a04eb@mail.gmail.com> References: <0BA40163-10C4-4CD5-94CD-6E7699335E09@ciroap.org> <54535d541001310418n341380fdkfc2014f2fc7a04eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3ef75b781001310428la6158batc51db97fe07802cc@mail.gmail.com> Yes with thematics 2010/1/31 Hong Xue > Could you use a voting system? It looks spams when hundreds of people > sending in votes by emails. > > Hong > > > > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 30/01/2010, at 5:51 PM, William Drake wrote: > > > >>>> I am at the same time coordinating a drafting team in the GNSO, on the > AoC implementation plan. When corporate lobbyists or others ask that > language be included, I don't take it upon myself to decide this gets in, > this stays out, this I'll reword to suit my views rather than those of the > person who made the suggestion—even if I strongly disagree with it. If > there's no obvious consensus it goes in brackets and then we try to work it > out. We used to do things that way in the IGC, and I don't recall us > deciding on a more centralized approach. > >>> > >>> We will welcome your nomination for coordinator next time, Bill. > >> > >> Thank you for responding to my concerns so seriously, Jeremy. Really > befits the co-coordinator role. > > > > As you know, I did in fact respond to them off-list, prior to you posting > this message, because I took exception to your suggestion that I was not > approaching this exercise in good faith, but deciding what text to include > or exclude based on my personal views. You have since suggested that I post > our off-list discussion back to the list, and I might well do that once I > have written a response to your latest. > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > -- > Dr. Hong Xue > Professor of Law > Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) > Beijing Normal University > www.iipl.org.cn > 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street > Beijing 100875 China > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Hindenburgo Francisco Pires Professor Adjunto do Departamento de Geografia Humana Instituto de Geografia • Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - UERJ Rua São Francisco Xavier, 524 - 4º andar - bloco D - sala 4031 • Maracanã Rio de Janeiro - RJ, CEP: 20550-013 | tel/fax: (21) 2254-2542 / 2334-0036 / 2334-0614 http://www.cibergeo.org/artigos/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Jan 31 08:01:50 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 09:01:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Preliminary results of consensus call on IGC In-Reply-To: <575BB2F5-33E3-4D39-982F-AE38C7BC4D50@ciroap.org> References: <575BB2F5-33E3-4D39-982F-AE38C7BC4D50@ciroap.org> Message-ID: This message raises several concerns for me which I hope can be discussed/clarified on the list. On 31 January 2010 03:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I am not calling a result yet, because I need to discuss with Ginger. I feel that this could have been more happily phrased, indeed more happily done. In a situation which deliberately has TWO co-coordinators surely the process should be to discuss first and then jointly publish even a preliminary result. >  However, as indication of participation, my count says that after removing > duplicate votes and accounting for changed votes (mainly from YES to YES + > thematic working groups), we have had 39 votes for YES + thematic working > groups, 3 YES votes, 3 NO votes, and one abstention. > Of these, seven YES + thematic working groups votes, and one YES vote, were > from non-members and have to be disregarded. PLEASE clarify the issue of "membership". This was not an election, it was an open vote to try to establish consensus. I have pasted in what seem to me to be the two relevant parts of the IGC charter below. "Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before the election will be given a voter account. As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that they are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information (i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form in order to vote).' While the language of this rubric seems to suggest that it is limited to elections, it is the only guidance the Charter offers for a "Voting Process" which in fact is the heading for the paragraph. So is this to govern the general "voting process" on issues, or only election voting? See the paragraph below. Is it the case that "an overwhelming majority of the IGC" DOES NOT include those people who have joined the group since the most recent election? In this case this would exclude those who became interested and joined the list during or after the most recent IGF meeting. Decisions The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible. When complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be jointly empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the purposes of the IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming majority of the IGC appears to agree with a position with any dissenting minority view having been well discussed and respected. > I expect to call a result soon after discussing with Ginger.  The result > will be subject to appeal. For statements defined as coming from two people the first person plural "we" or an impersonal third person plural "The co-coordinators" (although clumsy) would be preferable. But then I'm an English teacher, and fussy :-) Best wishes Deirdre > > -- > > 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 tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Sun Jan 31 08:19:27 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 09:19:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Preliminary results of consensus call on IGC In-Reply-To: References: <575BB2F5-33E3-4D39-982F-AE38C7BC4D50@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <808a83f61001310519k74dcbe1eq2f0737a3a818823a@mail.gmail.com> I agree 100% with the issues raised by Deidre. The message by Jeremy does raise several concerns and although the discussion on the topic seems to have died a natural death without being actioned, it appears that a more structured IGC moving forward could assist with ensuring that the approach currently employed for consenus building is enhanced. On 1/31/10, Deirdre Williams wrote: > This message raises several concerns for me which I hope can be > discussed/clarified on the list. > > On 31 January 2010 03:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> I am not calling a result yet, because I need to discuss with Ginger. > > I feel that this could have been more happily phrased, indeed more > happily done. In a situation which deliberately has TWO > co-coordinators surely the process should be to discuss first and then > jointly publish even a preliminary result. > >>  However, as indication of participation, my count says that after >> removing >> duplicate votes and accounting for changed votes (mainly from YES to YES + >> thematic working groups), we have had 39 votes for YES + thematic working >> groups, 3 YES votes, 3 NO votes, and one abstention. >> Of these, seven YES + thematic working groups votes, and one YES vote, >> were >> from non-members and have to be disregarded. > > PLEASE clarify the issue of "membership". This was not an election, it > was an open vote to try to establish consensus. I have pasted in what > seem to me to be the two relevant parts of the IGC charter below. > > "Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months > before the election will be given a voter account. > As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that > they are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described > elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information > (i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form in order to > vote).' > > While the language of this rubric seems to suggest that it is limited > to elections, it is the only guidance the Charter offers for a "Voting > Process" which in fact is the heading for the paragraph. So is this to > govern the general "voting process" on issues, or only election > voting? > > See the paragraph below. Is it the case that "an overwhelming majority > of the IGC" DOES NOT include those people who have joined the group > since the most recent election? In this case this would exclude those > who became interested and joined the list during or after the most > recent IGF meeting. > > Decisions > > The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible. > When complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be > jointly empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the > purposes of the IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming > majority of the IGC appears to agree with a position with any > dissenting minority view having been well discussed and respected. > >> I expect to call a result soon after discussing with Ginger.  The result >> will be subject to appeal. > > For statements defined as coming from two people the first person > plural "we" or an impersonal third person plural "The co-coordinators" > (although clumsy) would be preferable. > But then I'm an English teacher, and fussy :-) > > Best wishes > > Deirdre >> >> -- >> >> 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 -- Sent from my mobile device ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 31 08:54:47 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:24:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Preliminary results of consensus call on IGC In-Reply-To: <808a83f61001310519k74dcbe1eq2f0737a3a818823a@mail.gmail.com> References: <575BB2F5-33E3-4D39-982F-AE38C7BC4D50@ciroap.org> <808a83f61001310519k74dcbe1eq2f0737a3a818823a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B658BA7.2000807@itforchange.net> I am not sure what issues exactly bother Deirdre and Tracy so much, but let me try to respond to what I read. I dont see what could be the problem in Jeremy transparently putting forth the outcome of the process, without formally declaring the result which, as per the the charter, should be called jointly. He clearly says that "I expect to call a result soon after discussing with Ginger. The result will be subject to appeal". Two people objected to the process as not being proper, and so Jeremy in a rather proactive manner went beyond what has been the normal practice and described the precise outcomes of the process of calling consensus, which has always been done on a 'yes' 'no' vote. How can now we be accusing him of further violations is beyond me... As for the issue of 'voting' and membership in developing IGC positions, there is some degree of lack of clarity in the charter, and precedents are followed, as established over the last many years. Whether we count members or also include non-members, the result of the vote would not have change. it is also important to see that Bill, who called had earlier called the process into question, though on a different issue, did ask Jeremy specifically about the status of the voters, after the voting had started. >And, I presume, to ascertain that they are IGC members in good standing, not just list subscribers, per standard practice? (Bill) Since as per his later email, in being more proactive than normal in discussing the voting outcomes threadbare, Jeremy was laboring under the questions raised by Bill/ McTim on process issues, he as per Bill's question, also clarified the status of the voters, and also took a count disregarding non-members. i do agree that this issue of whether only member's votes are counted or every list subscriber's has been vague, and attempts to clarify this issue has been not successful earlier. This may be a good time though. I do think that anyone who has been on the list for 3 months should be able to apply to the co-coordinators to be included in the members' list after fulfilling due requirements. I also think that voter of only full members, who have clearly affirmed desire to be part of this collective process (independent of the current issue under consideration) , should count. Otherwise, to give an example, many IGC list subscribers, having interest in some institution etc (pl, it is only an example :) ), while not otherwise committed to IGC's collective opinion forming process, and thus not having applied for membership, may just vote enblock when some statement involving that institution is being framed, which would obviously be very unfair. But I do agree this issue of whose vote counts in a rough consensus forming process is a bit open right now. But this doesnt not at all mean that we keep discouraging a new coordinator in his first consensus call by open ended comments on 'things could be done better'. Parminder Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > I agree 100% with the issues raised by Deidre. The message by Jeremy > does raise several concerns and although the discussion on the topic > seems to have died a natural death without being actioned, it appears > that a more structured IGC moving forward could assist with ensuring > that the approach currently employed for consenus building is > enhanced. > > On 1/31/10, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> This message raises several concerns for me which I hope can be >> discussed/clarified on the list. >> >> On 31 January 2010 03:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> I am not calling a result yet, because I need to discuss with Ginger. >>> >> I feel that this could have been more happily phrased, indeed more >> happily done. In a situation which deliberately has TWO >> co-coordinators surely the process should be to discuss first and then >> jointly publish even a preliminary result. >> >> >>> However, as indication of participation, my count says that after >>> removing >>> duplicate votes and accounting for changed votes (mainly from YES to YES + >>> thematic working groups), we have had 39 votes for YES + thematic working >>> groups, 3 YES votes, 3 NO votes, and one abstention. >>> Of these, seven YES + thematic working groups votes, and one YES vote, >>> were >>> from non-members and have to be disregarded. >>> >> PLEASE clarify the issue of "membership". This was not an election, it >> was an open vote to try to establish consensus. I have pasted in what >> seem to me to be the two relevant parts of the IGC charter below. >> >> "Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months >> before the election will be given a voter account. >> As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that >> they are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described >> elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information >> (i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form in order to >> vote).' >> >> While the language of this rubric seems to suggest that it is limited >> to elections, it is the only guidance the Charter offers for a "Voting >> Process" which in fact is the heading for the paragraph. So is this to >> govern the general "voting process" on issues, or only election >> voting? >> >> See the paragraph below. Is it the case that "an overwhelming majority >> of the IGC" DOES NOT include those people who have joined the group >> since the most recent election? In this case this would exclude those >> who became interested and joined the list during or after the most >> recent IGF meeting. >> >> Decisions >> >> The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible. >> When complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be >> jointly empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the >> purposes of the IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming >> majority of the IGC appears to agree with a position with any >> dissenting minority view having been well discussed and respected. >> >> >>> I expect to call a result soon after discussing with Ginger. The result >>> will be subject to appeal. >>> >> For statements defined as coming from two people the first person >> plural "we" or an impersonal third person plural "The co-coordinators" >> (although clumsy) would be preferable. >> But then I'm an English teacher, and fussy :-) >> >> Best wishes >> >> Deirdre >> >>> -- >>> >>> 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 >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 31 09:31:15 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:31:15 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Preliminary results of consensus call on IGC statement for February IGF open consultation In-Reply-To: <575BB2F5-33E3-4D39-982F-AE38C7BC4D50@ciroap.org> References: <575BB2F5-33E3-4D39-982F-AE38C7BC4D50@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <754E3BE7-2FF7-4F67-8350-2AE1659A8D81@ciroap.org> On 31/01/2010, at 3:59 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I am not calling a result yet, because I need to discuss with Ginger. However, as indication of participation, my count says that after removing duplicate votes and accounting for changed votes (mainly from YES to YES + thematic working groups), we have had 39 votes for YES + thematic working groups, 3 YES votes, 3 NO votes, and one abstention. The coordinators have decided that a rough consensus now exists in favour of the IGC statement in the form below (ie. YES + thematic working groups). To clarify Deirdre's question on list, this is not a case where a vote has been taken. The "voting" is just a means of establishing the degree of consensus that exists. Also thanks Deirdre for pulling me up on talking in the singular first person about announcing the result - whilst Ginger had left the settling of this statement for me, in the end it is certainly a joint endeavour (and more than that, an endeavour of the entire IGC). Thanks to Parminder for expounding on the question of whether the views of those who had joined the list since the last election would be taken into account in assessing the consensus. As it happens, there is a current proposal to investigate revising the IGC charter. This is a point on which such a revision would be beneficial. We will revisit this in the coming weeks. The statement below will be sent to the Secretariat shortly. Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF. We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. About the IGC The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. -- 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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sun Jan 31 10:03:49 2010 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:03:49 -0500 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45ed74051001310703m4acfd331g6d591a763b3f85a@mail.gmail.com> same as Ian yes On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Yes with thematics > > > > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Reply-To: , Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:32:34 +0800 > To: > Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working > groups, YES or NO > > If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open consultation > meeting, please vote now. At present the statement might not pass the > consensus call - not because there has been a lot of opposition to it, but > because the total number of responses is still relatively low. > > Please also remember that we have another thread in which to discuss the > agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far there has been no response to > Parminder's suggestion of a theme on "Network Neutrality/Open Internet". > > Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call. > Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to clarify > their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have yet changed > their > vote. > > Please vote: > > YES + thematic working groups to accept the statement as shown here > YES to accept the statement without the [underlined passage] > NO to reject the statement > > Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the > IGF > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of > the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the > discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, > the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of > adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the > IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an > institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened > by > the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat > under > contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs > (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a > different UN body such as the ITU. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition > of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly > divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the > stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG > members, > and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of > stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF > meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year > (though > in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). > If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not > result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in > stone. [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the > present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation > of > IGF meetings.]] > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the > development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" > rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of > our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever > form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are > transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate > mechanisms. > > Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's > intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open > consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely > connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a > better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to > present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to > set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open > membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder > composition. > > [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background > material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken > up by the IGF.] > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which > reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil > society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and > participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > About the IGC > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide > spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in > internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World > Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global > public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now > comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who > have > subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at > http://www.igcaucus.org. > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > CI is 50 > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer > rights around the world. > http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > < > http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521& > int1stParentNodeID=89765> > . Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- - - - - - Disclaimer: Individual post. LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff > 914 769 3652 > law / computing / humanities: For identification only: > Founder/Director *Respectful Interfaces*; > Member, Board, Secretary (Officer) - Communications Coordination Committee for the > U.N.; > World Education Fellowship; > Member Committees on disability, aging, health, values, development; > President, National Disability Party (NDP); Steering Seat, International Disability Caucus; > Persons with Pain Intl., co-founded with Carol J. Levy; > ICT multiple decades; > Other affiliations on Request. > > n.b.: > - You are welcome to join *Respectful Interfaces.* The *Respectful > Interfaces* Coda is: "Achieving Dialogue While Cherishing Diversity" (ask > about event or continuing leadership interning). > - Communication, Cooperation and Collaboration are core values of the CCC/UN. P.S. While still in initial development - you are welcome to visit the startup (not yet with alternative text or captioning) *Respectful Interfaces* website - in order to browse, make requests, join in, and send suggestions to respectful.interfaces at gmail.com. To sample *respectful Interfaces* as an enterprise framework, with references to CCC/UN and WEF, click here: http://wp.me/PFqR6-K -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 31 10:07:25 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 07:07:25 -0800 Subject: [governance] Preliminary results of consensus call on IGC In-Reply-To: <4B658BA7.2000807@itforchange.net> References: <575BB2F5-33E3-4D39-982F-AE38C7BC4D50@ciroap.org> <808a83f61001310519k74dcbe1eq2f0737a3a818823a@mail.gmail.com> <4B658BA7.2000807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <76f819dd1001310707t19c81594g78496860d585597a@mail.gmail.com> Below are the relevant voting and membership provisions of the Charter as I see them. I've included a few interpretive comments in square bracketed paragraphs below the provisions labeled "CHARTER" which are the Charter text itself wherever quotes are used. However, first, I would note in response to Parminder's email below that if "practice" becomes "precedent" in any way actually capable of informing or altering the meaning of the Charter itself, then a continuing violation of the Charter's provisions is what the Charter actually *requires* per the "precedent." It then follows that unless a violation of the Charter is caught and corrected the first time it happens, it becomes "precedent" and operates as a de facto amendment of the charter, even though the Charter requirement of a 2/3 vote of the members and other Charter procedures for amending the Charter have not been met. The better view is that practice can not be precedent except in cases where a special judicial-style process has resulted in a narrow opinion upholding or striking down the practice on the ground, and the judges are professionally obligated to study and uphold the Charter itself. This process can then provide the blessing of precedent to actual practice, without the danger and absurdity of Charter violations constituting Charter compliance. SELECTED CHARTER PROVISIONS ON VOTING AND MEMBERSHIP (excerpted, with square brackets [ ] being linking or contextual paraphrase) CHARTER: “The members of the IGC” are identified as “individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus.” [FWIW, the text presently being voted on states that IGC list has over 400 people "who have subscribed to the charter." This would mean that they are members of IGC with voting rights, because SELF-affirmation, a "personal decision" of the individual, is the only prerequisite to voting other than a 2 month period on the list prior to automatically being given a "voters account" per the Charter's requirements. It doesn't seem reasonable to give a voters account to someone not a voter.] CHARTER: As to rights of members of the IGC, “All members are equal and have the same rights and duties.” CHARTER: As “[t]he priority working space” the members of the IGC “will use its mailing list - governance at lists.cpsr.org” CHARTER: Voting Registration "Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before the election will be given a voter account." CHARTER: Voting Process "As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain [affirm] that they are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information (i.e. a voter **must affirm** membership on the voter form **in order to vote**). The decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal decision based on the criteria defined." [Note that the self-affirmation is purely a voters "personal decision" and they have a voter account after 2 months on list. The Charter also provides for affirmation prior to voting FOR EACH VOTING PROCESS, as something that "must" be done prior to any vote. Thus, every voter at all times should "affirm the Charter" and then vote immediately thereafter. For those who already have a "voting account" by virtue of 2 months' presence on the list, this creates an equal system whereby anybody can vote who affirms the Charter on what amounts to a "same day voter registration" system except that even veteran voters will also affirm the Charter. This comes from this language of the Charter: "a voter **must affirm** membership on the voter form **in order to vote**. (asterisks added for emphasis)] While repeatedly affirming the Charter might seem redundant especially to those not especially enthused about the Charter, it is an expression of the most fundamental rule of the Charter regarding members: "All members are equal and have the same rights and duties.” Any doubts should thus be resolved in favor of equality of all. CHARTER: "All voting will be open," [unless a secret ballot is adopted.] [This appears to show an intent that both consensus operations identified in the charter as well as charter amendments are "voting" processes and they shall be "open" unless structured as secret ballots pursuant to the Charter.] CHARTER: "… [Interest groups, thematic groups, editing groups…should be spontaneously formed in most cases and] should not become bureaucratic entities in or of themselves and should be disbanded when they have served their purpose or if they are resulting in inefficient or exclusionary practice." [Note that "exclusionary practice" is grounds for disbanding subgroups - it's a violation of the equality principle of membership.] CHARTER: Amendments to the Charter "The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most currently available voters list." [The term "voters list" here is somewhat ambiguous, but is best interpreted to mean voters' registration list which the Charter calls the "voter account" list. If this is not the case, then failure to vote in any given election would result in exclusion from membership for purposes of an immediately subsequent Charter amendment, even though such a person had previously affirmed the charter and was otherwise fully qualified for all "voting processes" as defined by the Charter.] CHARTER Acceptance of the Charter "In order to qualify to vote on the charter, the prospective voter will first need to affirm that they qualify as a member of the group as described elsewhere in the charter." "Once a voter has self-affirmed membership, they will be qualified to vote for or against the Charter." CONCLUSION The present voting process bears re-examination because it creates at least two separate classes of members, or alternatively results in expulsion of members for not voting, when expulsion is not provided for in the charter on this basis (only for hostile listserv violations and the like). It does not appear that an election would be valid unless the voting process requires every voter to affirm the Charter as a prerequisite to voting but which is in the sole discretion of the voter whether to do so, or not. A voters list should be everyone with a voters account, otherwise the accountholder - a "voter" - is not a voter for actual voting purposes, which is a paradoxical result. Disclosure: Having been ill around the time of the last election, I myself am not a listed voter and was not allowed to vote. Nevertheless, the above constitutes what I submit is an objective view of the Charter geared towards resolving tensions between Charter language and practice, in light of the most fundamental aims of the Charter, which are equality of membership and acceptance of the human rights and other purposes of the IGC. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 1/31/10, Parminder wrote: > I am not sure what issues exactly bother Deirdre and Tracy so much, but > let me try to respond to what I read. > > I dont see what could be the problem in Jeremy transparently putting > forth the outcome of the process, without formally declaring the result > which, as per the the charter, should be called jointly. He clearly says > that "I expect to call a result soon after discussing with Ginger. The > result will be subject to appeal". > > Two people objected to the process as not being proper, and so Jeremy in > a rather proactive manner went beyond what has been the normal practice > and described the precise outcomes of the process of calling consensus, > which has always been done on a 'yes' 'no' vote. How can now we be > accusing him of further violations is beyond me... > > As for the issue of 'voting' and membership in developing IGC positions, > there is some degree of lack of clarity in the charter, and precedents > are followed, as established over the last many years. > > Whether we count members or also include non-members, the result of > the vote would not have change. it is also important to see that Bill, > who called had earlier called the process into question, though on a > different issue, did ask Jeremy specifically about the status of the > voters, after the voting had started. > >>And, I presume, to ascertain that they are IGC members in good standing, >> not just list subscribers, per standard practice? (Bill) > > > Since as per his later email, in being more proactive than normal in > discussing the voting outcomes threadbare, Jeremy was laboring under > the questions raised by Bill/ McTim on process issues, he as per Bill's > question, also clarified the status of the voters, and also took a count > disregarding non-members. > > i do agree that this issue of whether only member's votes are counted or > every list subscriber's has been vague, and attempts to clarify this > issue has been not successful earlier. This may be a good time though. > I do think that anyone who has been on the list for 3 months should be > able to apply to the co-coordinators to be included in the members' list > after fulfilling due requirements. I also think that voter of only full > members, who have clearly affirmed desire to be part of this collective > process (independent of the current issue under consideration) , should > count. Otherwise, to give an example, many IGC list subscribers, having > interest in some institution etc (pl, it is only an example :) ), while > not otherwise committed to IGC's collective opinion forming process, and > thus not having applied for membership, may just vote enblock when some > statement involving that institution is being framed, which would > obviously be very unfair. > > But I do agree this issue of whose vote counts in a rough consensus > forming process is a bit open right now. But this doesnt not at all mean > that we keep discouraging a new coordinator in his first consensus > call by open ended comments on 'things could be done better'. > > > Parminder > > > > > Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: >> I agree 100% with the issues raised by Deidre. The message by Jeremy >> does raise several concerns and although the discussion on the topic >> seems to have died a natural death without being actioned, it appears >> that a more structured IGC moving forward could assist with ensuring >> that the approach currently employed for consenus building is >> enhanced. >> >> On 1/31/10, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >>> This message raises several concerns for me which I hope can be >>> discussed/clarified on the list. >>> >>> On 31 January 2010 03:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>>> I am not calling a result yet, because I need to discuss with Ginger. >>>> >>> I feel that this could have been more happily phrased, indeed more >>> happily done. In a situation which deliberately has TWO >>> co-coordinators surely the process should be to discuss first and then >>> jointly publish even a preliminary result. >>> >>> >>>> However, as indication of participation, my count says that after >>>> removing >>>> duplicate votes and accounting for changed votes (mainly from YES to YES >>>> + >>>> thematic working groups), we have had 39 votes for YES + thematic >>>> working >>>> groups, 3 YES votes, 3 NO votes, and one abstention. >>>> Of these, seven YES + thematic working groups votes, and one YES vote, >>>> were >>>> from non-members and have to be disregarded. >>>> >>> PLEASE clarify the issue of "membership". This was not an election, it >>> was an open vote to try to establish consensus. I have pasted in what >>> seem to me to be the two relevant parts of the IGC charter below. >>> >>> "Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months >>> before the election will be given a voter account. >>> As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that >>> they are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described >>> elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information >>> (i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form in order to >>> vote).' >>> >>> While the language of this rubric seems to suggest that it is limited >>> to elections, it is the only guidance the Charter offers for a "Voting >>> Process" which in fact is the heading for the paragraph. So is this to >>> govern the general "voting process" on issues, or only election >>> voting? >>> >>> See the paragraph below. Is it the case that "an overwhelming majority >>> of the IGC" DOES NOT include those people who have joined the group >>> since the most recent election? In this case this would exclude those >>> who became interested and joined the list during or after the most >>> recent IGF meeting. >>> >>> Decisions >>> >>> The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible. >>> When complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be >>> jointly empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the >>> purposes of the IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming >>> majority of the IGC appears to agree with a position with any >>> dissenting minority view having been well discussed and respected. >>> >>> >>>> I expect to call a result soon after discussing with Ginger. The result >>>> will be subject to appeal. >>>> >>> For statements defined as coming from two people the first person >>> plural "we" or an impersonal third person plural "The co-coordinators" >>> (although clumsy) would be preferable. >>> But then I'm an English teacher, and fussy :-) >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Deirdre >>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >> >> > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From presidencia at internauta.org.ar Sun Jan 31 10:11:17 2010 From: presidencia at internauta.org.ar (Presidencia Internauta) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:11:17 -0300 Subject: [governance] YES + thematic working groups References: <2bd2431a1001301224x27200c17n3a899e890e2cd14f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3837A05AE8E4401F821EB0E4CE1CD3F2@Sergio> YES + thematic working groups!!! sergio salinas porto presidente Internauta, Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet http://www.internauta.org.ar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 31 10:17:47 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:17:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <690339E1-04A1-477B-B58A-2D7532BCD3A8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > And yes we should continue to support the human rights and development > agendas. We need to find a way to overcome the block on rights discussions > which was evident last year – if anyone has suggestions on how we might > achieve this I would be interested. Here is a suggestion. Why don't we pitch instead of a "Right to Internet Development", which would be the right to develop Internet policy and standards in a bottom up, open, documented and transparent fashion, independent from commercial and governmental interests. This combines Rights and a Development Agenda together in once concept. I would think the technical community would get behind this! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Sun Jan 31 10:22:48 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 07:22:48 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Preliminary results of consensus call on IGC In-Reply-To: <754E3BE7-2FF7-4F67-8350-2AE1659A8D81@ciroap.org> References: <575BB2F5-33E3-4D39-982F-AE38C7BC4D50@ciroap.org> <754E3BE7-2FF7-4F67-8350-2AE1659A8D81@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <76f819dd1001310722g2d2d0844k8e02eaaf3e9cd28d@mail.gmail.com> The rest of the results quote below as started in this thread, stated: > Of these, seven YES + thematic working groups votes, and one YES vote, were > from non-members and have to be disregarded. A question arises if this was "not a 'vote'" but rather a "consensus" call. Why were votes excluded from tallies on account of not being on the recently published membership list (which was derived solely from the actual voters on the recent Charter vote) if this is not a vote of members but simply a consensus of the IGC list? The actual text being voted on recites at the bottom what appears to be the full number of listserv participants (about 400) to enhance the credibility of IGC consensus statements (one assumes) and yet the IGC does not allow a substantial section of the 400 to vote on the consensus. The larger the number of people from whom a concensus is reached the stronger the resulting statement of consensus is, so there appears to be a result here that is not in the best interests of the IGC. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 1/31/10, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 31/01/2010, at 3:59 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> I am not calling a result yet, because I need to discuss with Ginger. >> However, as indication of participation, my count says that after removing >> duplicate votes and accounting for changed votes (mainly from YES to YES + >> thematic working groups), we have had 39 votes for YES + thematic working >> groups, 3 YES votes, 3 NO votes, and one abstention. > > The coordinators have decided that a rough consensus now exists in favour of > the IGC statement in the form below (ie. YES + thematic working groups). To > clarify Deirdre's question on list, this is not a case where a vote has been > taken. The "voting" is just a means of establishing the degree of consensus > that exists. > > Also thanks Deirdre for pulling me up on talking in the singular first > person about announcing the result - whilst Ginger had left the settling of > this statement for me, in the end it is certainly a joint endeavour (and > more than that, an endeavour of the entire IGC). > > Thanks to Parminder for expounding on the question of whether the views of > those who had joined the list since the last election would be taken into > account in assessing the consensus. As it happens, there is a current > proposal to investigate revising the IGC charter. This is a point on which > such a revision would be beneficial. We will revisit this in the coming > weeks. > > The statement below will be sent to the Secretariat shortly. > > Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the > IGF > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of > the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the > discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, > the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of > adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the > IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an > institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by > the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under > contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs > (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a > different UN body such as the ITU. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition > of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly > divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the > stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, > and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of > stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF > meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though > in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). > If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not > result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in > stone. > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the > development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" > rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of > our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever > form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are > transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate > mechanisms. > > Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's > intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open > consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely > connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a > better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to > present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to > set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open > membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background > material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken > up by the IGF. > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which > reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil > society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and > participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > About the IGC > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide > spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in > internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World > Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global > public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now > comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have > subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at > http://www.igcaucus.org. > > -- > 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. > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fm-lists at st-kilda.org Sun Jan 31 10:33:33 2010 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:33:33 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <690339E1-04A1-477B-B58A-2D7532BCD3A8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5CDE2482-365E-4667-8BDC-FFDB61604046@st-kilda.org> On 31 Jan 2010, at 15:17, McTim wrote: > Here is a suggestion. Why don't we pitch instead of a "Right to > Internet Development", which would be the right to develop Internet > policy and standards in a bottom up, open, documented and transparent > fashion, independent from commercial and governmental interests. > > This combines Rights and a Development Agenda together in once > concept. > > I would think the technical community would get behind this! +1 for this suggestion. The RIR community has long established processes that can be adopted for both the IGC & the IGF in the future. Not sure the ITU community will be quite so keen on it though. f ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Sun Jan 31 10:35:46 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 07:35:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Process issues for future consensus calls In-Reply-To: <7048891E-4BE3-4FCB-9E9C-FD7DCEE19FEF@ciroap.org> References: <7048891E-4BE3-4FCB-9E9C-FD7DCEE19FEF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <392104.22151.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> HI Jeremy and Ginger My vote and comments were not posted. Can you please confirm that they were received Correct full name is Shaila Rao Mistry Challenge the challenges! Rewrite the rules....Push the limits Know only........... you are limitless ________________________________ From: Jeremy Malcolm To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Sun, January 31, 2010 1:38:19 AM Subject: [governance] Process issues for future consensus calls Bill Drake (and McTim) earlier questioned my handling of the just-concluded drafting exercise and consensus call, and Bill and I continued that discussion off-list. He suggested I bring it back on list, so I am going to summarise the underlying issues between us here (rather than, as in our off-list discussion, going through why I did or didn't include such-and-such a comment in mind-numbing detail). As coordinator of this caucus, as in other groups I have led, I will seek to draft text using a modified "lazy consensus" approach that incorporates these steps: * Has text suggested on the list drawn, or could it realistically draw, any support other than from its proponent? (This is not an onerous test to pass.) * If so, does it contradict the views of a significant number of other members that remain strongly held despite an adequate period of discussion, such that it is unlikely that a rough consensus could emerge? * If so, suggest compromise text that could satisfy both camps where possible. * If this is not possible or neither camp is satisfied with the compromise, omit text on this issue from the statement altogether. * Otherwise, include the text. * My standard for including changes becomes more stringent when the last text prior to consensus call is posted, and still more so during the consensus call (when it is basically limited to correcting errors). Bill differs from me on this process. He will correct me if I mischaracterise his views, but I understand he prefers that all suggestions for changes (even contradictory ones) should be included in the text in brackets, and not removed until a specific (non-lazy) consensus emerges. Moreover if substantive changes are called for even after a consensus call, and there is sufficient time to re-open for discussion, the call should be rescinded. It may be possible for technology to come to our aid here, in that we could experiment with collectively drafting documents online without the need for confusing exchanges of emails with many bracketed sections, as Bill's approach would (in my view) have required in this case. If there is any interest in discussing these issues, this will be the thread in which to do so. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International KualaLumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 WismaWIM, 7 JalanAbangHajiOpeng, TTDI, 60000 KualaLumpur, 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 fm-lists at st-kilda.org Sun Jan 31 10:37:44 2010 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:37:44 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Preliminary results of consensus call on IGC In-Reply-To: <76f819dd1001310722g2d2d0844k8e02eaaf3e9cd28d@mail.gmail.com> References: <575BB2F5-33E3-4D39-982F-AE38C7BC4D50@ciroap.org> <754E3BE7-2FF7-4F67-8350-2AE1659A8D81@ciroap.org> <76f819dd1001310722g2d2d0844k8e02eaaf3e9cd28d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0DDD3AB1-99A2-43FF-8DDE-314650854AFE@st-kilda.org> On 31 Jan 2010, at 15:22, Paul Lehto wrote: > Why were votes excluded from tallies on account of not being on > the recently published membership list (which was derived solely from > the actual voters on the recent Charter vote) if this is not a vote of > members but simply a consensus of the IGC list? The membership list is from the recent election, you had to be a member to vote in the Charter Change vote. Membership is gained by voting in the co-ordinator election according to the current constitution/charter document. f ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From renate.bloem at gmail.com Sun Jan 31 10:45:58 2010 From: renate.bloem at gmail.com (Renate Bloem (Gmail)) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:45:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Updated IGC Membership list online: please check your status In-Reply-To: <4B643E99.90205@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4b65a5ba.1c05d00a.49c2.ffff98f9@mx.google.com> Yes + thematic working groups Renate Bloem Past President of CONGO Civicus UN Geneva Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 Mobile : +41763462310 renate.bloem at civicus.org renate.bloem at gmail.com CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa www.civicus.org _____ From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: samedi, 30. janvier 2010 15:14 To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Cc: Jeremy Malcolm Subject: [governance] Updated IGC Membership list online: please check your status Hi Everyone, Using the list of members who voted in the December 2009 Co-coordinator Election, I have updated the IGC Member List. Please review the list at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12 to confirm (for yourself) that you appear on the list if you should, and that your name is correctly spelled. If you have any corrections, changes or comments, please email me offlist. At the bottom of the list are four members named only by their email addresses. If you are one of these people, please contact me offlist so I can remove your email address and include your name. These are: jangiksu at gmail.com sunil at mahiti.org doutorsocratesoreidofutebol at gmail.com balbornoz at flacso.org.ec Thanks! Best, ginger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 31 10:52:52 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 07:52:52 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Preliminary results of consensus call on IGC In-Reply-To: <0DDD3AB1-99A2-43FF-8DDE-314650854AFE@st-kilda.org> References: <575BB2F5-33E3-4D39-982F-AE38C7BC4D50@ciroap.org> <754E3BE7-2FF7-4F67-8350-2AE1659A8D81@ciroap.org> <76f819dd1001310722g2d2d0844k8e02eaaf3e9cd28d@mail.gmail.com> <0DDD3AB1-99A2-43FF-8DDE-314650854AFE@st-kilda.org> Message-ID: <76f819dd1001310752u5a5fdd4ewca33564dc6761a0@mail.gmail.com> On 1/31/10, Fearghas McKay wrote: > > The membership list is from the recent election, you had to be a > member to vote in the Charter Change vote. > > Membership is gained by voting in the co-ordinator election according > to the current constitution/charter document. Please cite the Charter provision providing that "membership is gained by voting in the co-ordinator election" because I don't see that in the charter. What I see is only the requirement of affirming the charter which must be done for each and every vote in order for that vote to be valid, and that affirmation is to be a 'personal decision' of the individual. Moreover, since the Charter indicates all members are equal in rights and duties, creating a two class system of voters and members as a matter of Charter requirements does not at all seem justified. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Jan 31 12:24:52 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:54:52 -0430 Subject: [governance] Re: Preliminary results of consensus call on IGC: In-Reply-To: <76f819dd1001310752u5a5fdd4ewca33564dc6761a0@mail.gmail.com> References: <575BB2F5-33E3-4D39-982F-AE38C7BC4D50@ciroap.org> <754E3BE7-2FF7-4F67-8350-2AE1659A8D81@ciroap.org> <76f819dd1001310722g2d2d0844k8e02eaaf3e9cd28d@mail.gmail.com> <0DDD3AB1-99A2-43FF-8DDE-314650854AFE@st-kilda.org> <76f819dd1001310752u5a5fdd4ewca33564dc6761a0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B65BCE4.5050504@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Jan 31 12:27:05 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:27:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <690339E1-04A1-477B-B58A-2D7532BCD3A8@ciroap.org>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CBD9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Like Ian i am happier I am happier with the phrase 'open internet;' but would rather drop the phrase net neutrailty altogether. If I can't persuade rest of you to go along with that, then at least open internet should come 1st and net neutrality phrase 2nd. In sum: I strongly support an IGC statement calling for 'Open Internet' to be a main theme. My rationale: frankly 'net neutrality' as a stand-alone phrase is very 2008/dated. For example: The FCC launched an openinternet.gov website; and 'open internet' notice of proposed rulemaking - sometimes referred to as net neutrailty rulemaking, but that's not what the FCC is calling it. Reply comments are due march 5th if we/IGC care to comment ; ). From the FCC's openinternet.gov website: Get Informed about the Open Internet * Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About the Open Internet NPRM What Is the Open Internet, and What Does the FCC Have To Do With It? The "open Internet" is the Internet as we know it. It’s "open" because it uses free, publicly available standards that anyone can access and build to, and because it treats all traffic that flows across the network in roughly the same way. This means an innovator in a garage or a student in a dorm room can easily invent and launch a new online service, and that content from a small business or a blogger can reach customers and audiences as easily as content from a multinational corporation or a major newspaper. Once you’re online, you don’t have to ask permission or pay tolls to broadband providers to reach others on the network. If you develop an innovative new website, you don’t have to get permission to share it with the world. Many believe that this freedom to communicate and innovate without permission is a big cause of the Internet’s remarkable success. But the Internet’s openness appears to face some emerging challenges, such as incidents where broadband providers have restricted the applications their customers can use over their Internet connections, a lack of transparency about how consumers’ Internet service will function, and congestion on the network. In light of these emerging challenges and uncertainties about existing policies, last month the FCC began a process to seek public input on draft rules of the road that would clarify and supplement current FCC policies to protect the open Internet. These basic, high-level rules would ensure that broadband providers don’t block consumers from accessing the content and applications of their choice, don’t deprive consumers of their entitlement to competition, and don’t discriminate against or in favor of traffic, and they would require broadband providers to disclose basic information about broadband service. Recognizing that the proposed framework needs to balance potentially competing interests while helping to ensure an open, safe, and secure Internet, the draft rules would permit broadband providers to engage in reasonable network management, including but not limited to efforts to block spam and ensure that heavy users don’t crowd out other users. To launch the rulemaking process, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, often referred to as the "open Internet NPRM." As the FCC always does when it considers new rules, it has asked the public for input, and anyone may submit comments over a period of several months. After the deadline for comments has passed and the FCC has reviewed the public’s input, the FCC’s five Commissioners may vote to adopt rules on these issues. ________________________________________ From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 4:21 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius I’d certainly like to see network neutrality/ open internet advanced as a theme, and seeing net neutrality can be so confusing I’d like to see open Internet added after it. IGC co sponsored a very successful three hour workshop on this at Sharm with Diplo. There are many issues, content neutrality probably sitting highest in my mind. Its worthy of a main session as the current main session themes we have repeated for some years are getting a little tired. And yes we should continue to support the human rights and development agendas. We need to find a way to overcome the block on rights discussions which was evident last year – if anyone has suggestions on how we might achieve this I would be interested. ________________________________ From: Jeremy Malcolm Reply-To: , Jeremy Malcolm Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:40:27 +0800 To: Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius On 29/01/2010, at 6:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: So, let's get to work on such a statement now. I don't think it needs to be very long, and indeed we could just put forward some bullet points for Ginger to elaborate upon on the day. So far we have on the table the following substantive themes: * Human rights * Development agenda * Network neutrality/Open Internet Comments, please, particularly on the last of these which Parminder has just introduced? With just over a week to go there have still been no comments on this thread so far, so I will try to summarise some of the arguments that are usually made for and against this theme, as a way of kick-starting discussion: FOR: Network neutrality (or "open Internet") emphasises the interest of Internet users in being able, by default, to access content, services and applications free from corporate or governmental interference (though there are cases in which compelling interests may require exceptions to this general principle). Network neutrality also stands for the treatment of intermediaries (again, by default) as conduits for information, rather than gatekeepers who bear liability for the content they carry. AGAINST: Network neutrality is a confusing phrase with many different meanings to different people. For example it is still wrongly thought of as preventing individual network operators from managing their bandwidth, which will only lead to misunderstandings in Vilnius (like the arguments over whether "critical Internet resources" includes electricity). On the other hand "Open Internet" doesn't seem to add anything to the existing "Openness" theme, so why not just keep using that existing theme instead? -- 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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sun Jan 31 13:01:37 2010 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:01:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Preliminary results of consensus call on IGC: In-Reply-To: <4B65BCE4.5050504@gmail.com> References: <575BB2F5-33E3-4D39-982F-AE38C7BC4D50@ciroap.org> <754E3BE7-2FF7-4F67-8350-2AE1659A8D81@ciroap.org> <76f819dd1001310722g2d2d0844k8e02eaaf3e9cd28d@mail.gmail.com> <0DDD3AB1-99A2-43FF-8DDE-314650854AFE@st-kilda.org> <76f819dd1001310752u5a5fdd4ewca33564dc6761a0@mail.gmail.com> <4B65BCE4.5050504@gmail.com> Message-ID: <45ed74051001311001u5058b5actf6348db234d0147@mail.gmail.com> Hi Ginger, Paul *et al:* Just a quick echo of appreciation. Category sorting is often such a big job and brava bravo for undertaking it especially in a super timely and super relevant content domain.,. Warm regards from cold New York, Linda; M F. On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > On 1/31/10, Fearghas McKay wrote: > > The membership list is from the recent election, you had to be a > member to vote in the Charter Change vote. > > Membership is gained by voting in the co-ordinator election according > to the current constitution/charter document. > > > > Precisely because of these points and questions raised by Paul Lehto and > others, it is obvious that we do need to have a review, analysis and > clarification process of our voting procedures. This was discussed last > year, and several people, including Paul Lehto and Fearghas McKay, perhaps > Ian and Parminder, as well as myself, have offered to work on this. The work > is projected to start as soon as possible after the February OC in Geneva, > and I think that Paul is already doing a preliminary review. > > My interpretation is that the "separate" list possibility came up when we > needed to establish a "number" of actual IGC members, in order to decide on > the number of votes needed to approve a charter amendment. Since our mailing > list consists of email addresses, not "people" or even names, and in fact > has multiple email addresses for some people, it is difficult to use that > list as a basis to establish this number. > > For that reason, we have been drawing up a "member's list" which includes > those who have exercised their right to vote in recent elections, so we know > they are active members. Others who have been mailing list members for over > two months, and affirm their subscription to the charter, may also vote in, > for example, a co-coordinator election. > > To my understanding they (members of the mailing list for over two months) > may also take part in a call for consensus, and their votes are valid in the > call for consensus. I am uncertain about the "legal" status of voting for a > charter amendment, and a WG opinion on that would be very helpful. > > Best, > Ginger > > Paul Lehto wrote: > > On 1/31/10, Fearghas McKay wrote: > > > The membership list is from the recent election, you had to be a > member to vote in the Charter Change vote. > > Membership is gained by voting in the co-ordinator election according > to the current constitution/charter document. > > > Please cite the Charter provision providing that "membership is gained > by voting in the co-ordinator election" because I don't see that in > the charter. What I see is only the requirement of affirming the > charter which must be done for each and every vote in order for that > vote to be valid, and that affirmation is to be a 'personal decision' > of the individual. Moreover, since the Charter indicates all members > are equal in rights and duties, creating a two class system of voters > and members as a matter of Charter requirements does not at all seem > justified. > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box #1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- - - - - - Disclaimer: Individual post. LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff > 914 769 3652 > law / computing / humanities: For identification only: > Founder/Director *Respectful Interfaces*; > Member, Board, Secretary (Officer) - Communications Coordination Committee for the > U.N.; > World Education Fellowship; > Member Committees on disability, aging, health, values, development; > President, National Disability Party (NDP); Steering Seat, International Disability Caucus; > Persons with Pain Intl., co-founded with Carol J. Levy; > ICT multiple decades; > Other affiliations on Request. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jan 31 14:12:49 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:12:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] Process issues for future consensus calls In-Reply-To: <7048891E-4BE3-4FCB-9E9C-FD7DCEE19FEF@ciroap.org> References: <7048891E-4BE3-4FCB-9E9C-FD7DCEE19FEF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: All, On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Bill Drake (and McTim) earlier questioned my handling of the just-concluded > drafting exercise and consensus call Just to clarify, it was the closing of the statement and the re-opening it (after a reiteration that it was closed) that I objected to, not the drafting exercise itself. , and Bill and I continued that > discussion off-list.  He suggested I bring it back on list, so I am going to > summarise the underlying issues between us here (rather than, as in our > off-list discussion, going through why I did or didn't include such-and-such > a comment in mind-numbing detail). > As coordinator of this caucus, as in other groups I have led, I will seek to > draft text using a modified "lazy consensus" approach that incorporates > these steps: > * Has text suggested on the list drawn, or could it realistically draw, any > support other than from its proponent?  (This is not an onerous test to > pass.) > * If so, does it contradict the views of a significant number > of other members that remain strongly held despite an adequate period of > discussion, such that it is unlikely that a rough consensus could emerge? > * If so, suggest compromise text that could satisfy both camps where > possible. > * If this is not possible or neither camp is satisfied with the compromise, > omit text on this issue from the statement altogether. > * Otherwise, include the text. > * My standard for including changes becomes more stringent when the last > text prior to consensus call is posted, and still more so during the > consensus call (when it is basically limited to correcting errors). That was not my perception of what happened this time. The charter does not specify how text is drafted or edited. However, given how messy the process was this time, i would not wish to use this method going forward. In any case, it seems that most folk prefer the statement as amended to include Thematic WGs. I have no problem with us issuing such a statement, as it does seem to reflect the majority of opinion of Caucus Members. However, I do have a problem with the conflation of voting and finding consensus. IIRC, we vote ONLY when electing coordinators. Let's keep the word "voting/vote" ONLY for elections, IMO we do NOT vote on statements. We indicate support for statements (or lack thereof). While the difference is subtle it is important for some of us, and is one of the reasons we approved the charter as is. Let's NOT do "Preliminary results of" anything, as it only serves to muddy the waters. Charter says: "In cases where the IGC cannot reach full consensus, the two coordinators together can make a decision on rough consensus subject to an appeal as described below." In this case, it seems clear there is a consensus of those who have voiced an opinion. Two coordinators calling rough consensus are needed only when there is no clear consensus. > Bill differs from me on this process.  He will correct me if I > mischaracterise his views, but I understand he prefers that all suggestions > for changes (even contradictory ones) should be included in the text in > brackets, and not removed until a specific (non-lazy) consensus emerges. >  Moreover if substantive changes are called for even after a consensus call, > and there is sufficient time to re-open for discussion, the call should be > rescinded. > It may be possible for technology to come to our aid here, in that we could > experiment with collectively drafting documents online without the need for > confusing exchanges of emails with many bracketed sections, as Bill's > approach would (in my view) have required in this case. As long as we use the website specified in the charter. -- 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Sun Jan 31 15:09:26 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:09:26 -0800 Subject: [governance] Process issues for future consensus calls In-Reply-To: References: <7048891E-4BE3-4FCB-9E9C-FD7DCEE19FEF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <76f819dd1001311209g75363dd6yf0d2104df4e5863e@mail.gmail.com> My "Political Dictionary" defines "consensus" as "agreement approaching unanimity, usually without a vote." But not always without a vote, since there must be some way to assess the consensus, especially at the frontier of 'rough consensus' the existence of which allows coordinators to draft (or rather re-draft) a statement representing the rough consensus. To the extent a redrafted statement incorporates (without future objection) the concerns of the minority, it might then qualify for full consensus, depending. Where differences are fundamental and/or are not incorporated into the statement of rough consensus (or where there is no tweaking of the text attempted) the existing text would then have the tag of "approved by rough consensus" or the like. If one wished to avoid voting per se, one procedure that seems sound to me is for an "integrator" (whether it be a co-ordinator or their delegate, or a subcommittee member that's agreed upon) to review all available posts, asking for clarification where needed, then drafting up a statement that they believe is acceptable to all or very nearly all (definition of consensus) and then circulating that statement to the list to hear any feedback, especially those objections that would be in the nature of "fails to capture the full group in the following way..." or "substantially misrepresents an idea of the group or its members" or drafting typos or errors. Upon the requisite comment period of 48 hours or as otherwise applicable, a good faith redraft is done. The Integrator or referee so to speak in the above process would ideally have the skills of a elgal drafter to some extent, a grasp of technical basics with ability to learn, and a high commitment to active listening with a view toward the integration of the wisdom of the group as a whole. It is both very limiting (in the listening/input aspect) and quite creative (in the imagination of the integration that might make various voices consistent, to the full extent possible). Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 1/31/10, McTim wrote: > All, > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Bill Drake (and McTim) earlier questioned my handling of the >> just-concluded >> drafting exercise and consensus call > > Just to clarify, it was the closing of the statement and the > re-opening it (after a reiteration that it was closed) that I objected > to, not the drafting exercise itself. > > , and Bill and I continued that >> discussion off-list. He suggested I bring it back on list, so I am going >> to >> summarise the underlying issues between us here (rather than, as in our >> off-list discussion, going through why I did or didn't include >> such-and-such >> a comment in mind-numbing detail). >> As coordinator of this caucus, as in other groups I have led, I will seek >> to >> draft text using a modified "lazy consensus" approach that incorporates >> these steps: >> * Has text suggested on the list drawn, or could it realistically draw, >> any >> support other than from its proponent? (This is not an onerous test to >> pass.) >> * If so, does it contradict the views of a significant number >> of other members that remain strongly held despite an adequate period of >> discussion, such that it is unlikely that a rough consensus could emerge? >> * If so, suggest compromise text that could satisfy both camps where >> possible. >> * If this is not possible or neither camp is satisfied with the >> compromise, >> omit text on this issue from the statement altogether. >> * Otherwise, include the text. >> * My standard for including changes becomes more stringent when the last >> text prior to consensus call is posted, and still more so during the >> consensus call (when it is basically limited to correcting errors). > > That was not my perception of what happened this time. > > The charter does not specify how text is drafted or edited. However, > given how messy the process was this time, i would not wish to use > this method going forward. > > In any case, it seems that most folk prefer the statement as amended > to include Thematic WGs. I have no problem with us issuing such a > statement, as it does seem to reflect the majority of opinion of > Caucus Members. > > However, I do have a problem with the conflation of voting and finding > consensus. IIRC, we vote ONLY when electing coordinators. > > Let's keep the word "voting/vote" ONLY for elections, IMO we do NOT > vote on statements. We indicate support for statements (or lack > thereof). While the difference is subtle it is important for some of > us, and is one of the reasons we approved the charter as is. > > Let's NOT do "Preliminary results of" anything, as it only serves to > muddy the waters. > > Charter says: > "In cases where the IGC cannot reach full consensus, the two > coordinators together can make a decision on rough consensus subject > to an appeal as described below." > > In this case, it seems clear there is a consensus of those who have > voiced an opinion. Two coordinators calling rough consensus are > needed only when there is no clear consensus. > > >> Bill differs from me on this process. He will correct me if I >> mischaracterise his views, but I understand he prefers that all >> suggestions >> for changes (even contradictory ones) should be included in the text in >> brackets, and not removed until a specific (non-lazy) consensus emerges. >> Moreover if substantive changes are called for even after a consensus >> call, >> and there is sufficient time to re-open for discussion, the call should be >> rescinded. >> It may be possible for technology to come to our aid here, in that we >> could >> experiment with collectively drafting documents online without the need >> for >> confusing exchanges of emails with many bracketed sections, as Bill's >> approach would (in my view) have required in this case. > > As long as we use the website specified in the charter. > > > -- > 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 -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com Sun Jan 31 16:37:31 2010 From: nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com (NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:37:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: UPDATED MEMBERSHIP LIST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <809532.33881.qm@web34306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> This is Pastor Peters OMORAGBON-confirming my membership of the IGC Pastor Peters OMORAGBON Executive President/CEO Nurses Across the Borders Humanitarian Initiative-Inc.-(Nigeria & U.S.A) An NGO On Special Consultative Status with The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations-(ECOSOC) Member(OBSERVER),United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) URL: www.nursesacrosstheborders.org NABHI as affiliate of the United Nations is poised to uphold the TENETS of the CHARTERS of the UN. THIS it pledges to promote and publicise for enhanced Sustainable Developmet. WE believe in a World of Law and Order, Peace and Security with RESPECT for Fundamental Human Rights. NABHI IS NOT A VISA PROCUREMENT AGENCY NOR IS IT AN INTERNATIONAL RECRUITMENT AGENCY --- On Sun, 1/31/10, McTim wrote: > From: McTim > Subject: Re: [governance] Process issues for future consensus calls > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" > Date: Sunday, January 31, 2010, 7:12 PM > All, > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > Bill Drake (and McTim) earlier questioned my handling > of the just-concluded > > drafting exercise and consensus call > > Just to clarify, it was the closing of the statement and > the > re-opening it (after a reiteration that it was closed) that > I objected > to, not the drafting exercise itself. > > , and Bill and I continued that > > discussion off-list.  He suggested I bring it back on > list, so I am going to > > summarise the underlying issues between us here > (rather than, as in our > > off-list discussion, going through why I did or didn't > include such-and-such > > a comment in mind-numbing detail). > > As coordinator of this caucus, as in other groups I > have led, I will seek to > > draft text using a modified "lazy consensus" approach > that incorporates > > these steps: > > * Has text suggested on the list drawn, or could it > realistically draw, any > > support other than from its proponent?  (This is not > an onerous test to > > pass.) > > * If so, does it contradict the views of a significant > number > > of other members that remain strongly held despite > an adequate period of > > discussion, such that it is unlikely that a rough > consensus could emerge? > > * If so, suggest compromise text that could satisfy > both camps where > > possible. > > * If this is not possible or neither camp is satisfied > with the compromise, > > omit text on this issue from the statement > altogether. > > * Otherwise, include the text. > > * My standard for including changes becomes more > stringent when the last > > text prior to consensus call is posted, and still more > so during the > > consensus call (when it is basically limited to > correcting errors). > > That was not my perception of what happened this time. > > The charter does not specify how text is drafted or > edited.  However, > given how messy the process was this time, i would not wish > to use > this method going forward. > > In any case, it seems that most folk prefer the statement > as amended > to include Thematic WGs.  I have no problem with us > issuing such a > statement, as it does seem to reflect the majority of > opinion of > Caucus Members. > > However, I do have a problem with the conflation of voting > and finding > consensus.  IIRC, we vote ONLY when electing > coordinators. > > Let's keep the word "voting/vote" ONLY for elections, IMO > we do NOT > vote on statements.  We indicate support for > statements (or lack > thereof).  While the difference is subtle it is > important for some of > us, and is one of the reasons we approved the charter as > is. > > Let's NOT do "Preliminary results of" anything, as it only > serves to > muddy the waters. > > Charter says: > "In cases where the IGC cannot reach full consensus, the > two > coordinators together can make a decision on rough > consensus subject > to an appeal as described below." > > In this case, it seems clear there is a consensus of those > who have > voiced an opinion.  Two coordinators calling rough > consensus are > needed only when there is no clear consensus. > > > > Bill differs from me on this process.  He will > correct me if I > > mischaracterise his views, but I understand he prefers > that all suggestions > > for changes (even contradictory ones) should be > included in the text in > > brackets, and not removed until a specific (non-lazy) > consensus emerges. > >  Moreover if substantive changes are called for even > after a consensus call, > > and there is sufficient time to re-open for > discussion, the call should be > > rescinded. > > It may be possible for technology to come to our aid > here, in that we could > > experiment with collectively drafting documents online > without the need for > > confusing exchanges of emails with many bracketed > sections, as Bill's > > approach would (in my view) have required in this > case. > > As long as we use the website specified in the charter. > > > -- > 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