From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 1 00:26:19 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 09:56:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Thanks to Ginger In-Reply-To: <54718B52-D2A6-44FC-9E54-2F96767E5A1C@ciroap.org> References: <54718B52-D2A6-44FC-9E54-2F96767E5A1C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4CA562EB.9070004@itforchange.net> Thanks Ginger, for steering us so well!! You sense of dedication and openness really stands out, and adds new standards to the coordinator's profile Warmly, and with the disability of coming in late to have heard most of what I would have wanted to say already said so much better than perhaps I could :), I congratulate you for the work so well done, and hope to continue to have you around, and very active, to help us along.... Parminder On Friday 01 October 2010 07:32 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Ginger made it very easy for me to slip into the co-coordinator seat beside her, and was never anything less than helpful, supportive and wise. Thank you Ginger and I wish you all the best as you take a well-deserved rest from coordination of the IGC. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 1 01:55:47 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:55:47 +0800 Subject: [governance] Marilia's election statement References: Message-ID: <63278E12-0FFE-433D-B123-CEB7B76F69BE@ciroap.org> Here is Marília's election statement, which I have just posted on the voting site also. > I would like to volunteer to work as one of the coordinators of the Internet Governance Caucus. In this short statement I would like to briefly share my views on the main challenges regarding the IG process in the near future and the skills that would make me fit to facilitate discussions in IGC so we can face these challenges together. > > Civil society is confronted with very important issues when it comes to the Internet Governance Process. Firstly, the IGF is going through a moment of reevaluation and change. It is important to intervene effectively, to ensure that the changes that will eventually be implemented will have as outcome a more inclusive meeting and a strengthened international forum, capable of influencing the myriad of organizations currently involved with internet governance. Secondly, it is important to resist some attempts of forum-shifting that try to diminish the role of the IGF, while empowering ITU to deal with issues related to Internet Governance that are currently under the scope of the IGF. > > I have decided to include my name on this election for some reasons. The first one is that I believe that we need to bring more diversity to the IGF process, such as diversity of organizations involved, diversity of speakers, geographical diversity and gender diversity. If I am elected for IGC, this is one of the topics I would like to prioritize. In order to promote diversity, it is important to communicate better about the IGF process and its importance for civil society. This leads me to the second reason why I volunteered for this task. I believe that over the past few years I have improved communication skills that have helped to promote the IGF and the possibility of remote participation, by being actively involved with the Remote Participation Working Group. I would like to continue working not only to promote remote participation, but also to foster more involvement of civil society organizations with IGC. > > Lastly, in a challenging moment such as the one we are living, an effective coordination among ourselves, capable of leading to concrete and concerted actions, is essential. I have experience in project leading, I am very used to working in group and I have been involved with politics and policy development. I would like to use this experience to facilitate the process of harmonizing IGC´s positions and to help carry out the activities that have been decided upon. > > I am looking forward to working with the IGC coordinator and with all the group and I thank you in advance for your support. > > > Marília Maciel -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mazzone at ebu.ch Fri Oct 1 02:30:37 2010 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 08:30:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: Thanks to Ginger In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF4D40D506F@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> I associate myself to the thanks to Ginger for her excellent work and for her dedication to the remote participation task. Giacomo -----Original Message----- From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: jeudi, 30. septembre 2010 22:25 To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Cc: Ginger Paque Subject: [governance] Thanks to Ginger Seeing its just a few days until a new co coordinator is announced, and at that time we will all want to congratulate the new appointment - I would like us to congratulate and thank Ginger Paque for her excellent work as a co coordinator for the last two years. As the person who was co coordinator with her for the first of those two years - Jeremy shared this role for the rest of her term - I am very aware of the dedication that Ginger brought to this role, and the hard work she has done in keeping things running smoothly. It's not easy or trivial being a co coordinator of this Caucus. It requires both hard work and skills, and Ginger brought both to the role in abundant quantities. I invite others to say a few words, but certainly I know I speak for just about everyone here in thanking Ginger for a job really well done, and a great contribution in this role towards civil society's active involvement in Internet Governance. Thanks Ginger - I know you are not leaving us or vacating the field, but know that what you have done here over the last two years has been truly appreciated. Many Thanks, 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 ----------------------------------------- ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 1 03:52:14 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 15:52:14 +0800 Subject: [governance] New Blogpost: Investment 58-Poverty 14: The UN's Broadband Commission for Digital Development vs. the MDGs In-Reply-To: <22052842.11264.1285888241558.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g03> Message-ID: Well put Jean-Louis... Your comments rather parallel my own on the other list... You will excuse me if I'm just a wee bit cynical and skeptical about what a "huge *win* this is" especially when the defining characteristic of this one seems to be to jetison all of those few gains that civil society managed to make as they/we worked our way through the entire process--i.e. transparency, accountablity, multistakeholderism, and a pragmatic neutrality around funding mechanisms. Might not this be worthy of a comment/statement by the IGC? M -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr] Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 7:11 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; MichaelGurstein Subject: re: [governance] New Blogpost: Investment 58-Poverty 14: The UN's Broadband Commission for Digital Development vs. the MDGs > This may be of interest... > > M Of course Michael, it is ! I do share your opinion about the rather problematic relation(s) between Broadband access and Poverty alleviation, and all this discourse that was poured on the folks attending the WSIS meetings. This whole process tried -and is still trying- to instrumentalize ONGs for disseminating ICT gear at any cost for the POSSIBLE "benefit" of DCs and their populations. Whereas the REAL benefit goes to the private sector : manufacturers, vendors, advisers, service providers and operators. I think that the economical and above all the financial aspects and issues of ICT/BB dissemination in DCs, let's say sub-Saharean Africa, should be thoroughly and objectively analyzed and published. Just as an example : Does Africa REALLY need eight submarine cables from Dakar to the Cape (there are three ones in service and by the end of next year there are five other ones to come) ? At an average cost of 300 to 400 M$, this means a total investment of around 3 billion dollars ! This is 2 billions too much, or a hold-up of 2 billions from the basic needs in DCs, i.e. food, water, sanitation and energy (remember : WEHAB, the Jo'burg UN Develoment Summit program, nowhere even mentions ICT !). Who will ever carry out such a survey ? Maybe research teams in Universities, through a holistic, multidisciplinary approach (human, sociologic, economic, financial, environmental, ...). Why not with you, Michael ? In the meantime, this hold-up is sponsored by the UN and -first of all- the ITU. BTW : The CS in completely absent in this "BB4D Commission". This shows how high is multi-stakeholdership right now, and how inclusive are the two vice-chairs of the WSIS ... and of the "Commission". As far as the co-chairs are concerned, the first one isn't actually an example of democratic governance, and the second is quite simply the wealthiest man in the world ... A methaphor when we consider the billion people still suffering from poverty and hoping for a better future. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT and CESIR > Message du 28/09/10 07:25 > De : "Michael Gurstein" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] New Blogpost: Investment 58-Poverty 14: The UN's Broadband Commission for Digital Development vs. the MDGs > > > > This may be of interest... > > M > > > Investment 58-Poverty 14: The UN's Broadband Commission for Digital > Development vs. the MDGs > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/investment-58%E2%80%94poverty-14-th > e-un%E2%80%99s-broadband-commission-for-digital-development-vs-the-mdgs/ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 1 03:52:14 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 15:52:14 +0800 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: <3747F228-0546-460F-BAB2-93CC61EA4AAD@psg.com> Message-ID: <51A488AF3EF2453DAD807403C1BA9B89@userPC> I think more than a bit of "outreach" is required... It needs to be part of a worked through strategy and broader agreed upon initiative... Developing a paper in (nuanced) response to the BB Commission report might be one way to start. M -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 7:22 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] Criterion for charter voting hi, I know there is a stream of new subscribers, and occasionally a new voice. i think we should have more outreach and i think it would be great if someone organized it. maybe when you come back from your adventure. cheers a. On 29 Sep 2010, at 18:58, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > I think what I mean is obvious especially since I've been saying more > or less the same thing for years... Yes, I think that there should be > a deliberate plan/program of engagement with the broader civil society > and particularly those elements of civil society who are active around > ICTs, social justice and the Internet globally--and there are > multitudes. The folks active in the HR caucus for example seem to > have managed to do something of this reasonably successfully at least > as I have been observing them from a distance. > > Personally, I go in and out of direct involvements which would be of > interest to or interested in IG issues depending on a variety of > personal and other circumstances... At the moment I could certainly > engage with sympathetic folks in Canada and and to a lesser extent in > various other parts of the world where I happen to be working/doing > research etc. but the problem is that to my mind we (IGC) have allowed > ourselves to accept a way too narrow definition of what IG means, > rather narrower I would say than even the IGF as a whole is now coming > to accept and certainly narrower than would be of interest to many of > those who would (and should) be our allies and compadres. > > Every year about this time I write the same thing and every year folks > move on around "the bad relay point/me" but from what I can see (and > again from a > distance) not having the means or the passion to get myself to Vilnius, the > IGC is, if anything, dwindling as older folks drift away and not a lot of > younger folks are recruited and certainly no great tranches of broader civil > society are engaged with. > > But I'm off on a bit of a personal adventure for the next while and > will have only limited time to engage in a debate on these issues if > any should result from these rather gnarly remarks. > > Best to all, > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 3:04 PM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] Criterion for charter voting > > > > and why do you mean by this? > > is there some activity you think the group should be engaged in, that > it is not? > have you been doing outreach bringing in new people? > > a. > > On 29 Sep 2010, at 16:25, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> I don't mean to be curmudgeonly but I really would have preferred to >> see some of the energy and creativity that is going into ensuring the > probity of the electoral system of this several handfuls of people > most of whom know each other by sight over almost a decade, into > broadening and deepening the group so that it has some broader > legitimacy (and not just > legalistically) as a voice for civil society in these most significant > areas. >> >> Mike ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk Fri Oct 1 04:12:22 2010 From: jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk (Jonathan Cave) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 08:12:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] New Blogpost: Investment 58-Poverty 14: The UN'sBroadband Commission for Digital Development vs. the MDGs In-Reply-To: References: <22052842.11264.1285888241558.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g03> Message-ID: <1307106566-1285920741-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1812899282-@bda2016.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> A strained analogy occurs to me; distributing clean needles can help in the fight against HIV, so why not give them to all susceptible people? More seriously, there are worse risks than inequitable distribution of economic benefits, including the inefficiency of extending the market power of concentrated parts of the ICT value mesh, exposing local markets to entrenched global suppliers of goods and services and employers of labour and consolidating the political power of those providing newly-critical infrastructure. Briefly, the static picture's a lot rosier than the dynamic one. Too much/soon? J. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -----Original Message----- From: "Michael Gurstein" Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 15:52:14 To: 'Jean-Louis FULLSACK'; Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Michael Gurstein" Subject: RE: [governance] New Blogpost: Investment 58-Poverty 14: The UN's Broadband Commission for Digital Development vs. the MDGs Well put Jean-Louis... Your comments rather parallel my own on the other list... You will excuse me if I'm just a wee bit cynical and skeptical about what a "huge *win* this is" especially when the defining characteristic of this one seems to be to jetison all of those few gains that civil society managed to make as they/we worked our way through the entire process--i.e. transparency, accountablity, multistakeholderism, and a pragmatic neutrality around funding mechanisms. Might not this be worthy of a comment/statement by the IGC? M -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr] Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 7:11 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; MichaelGurstein Subject: re: [governance] New Blogpost: Investment 58-Poverty 14: The UN's Broadband Commission for Digital Development vs. the MDGs > This may be of interest... > > M Of course Michael, it is ! I do share your opinion about the rather problematic relation(s) between Broadband access and Poverty alleviation, and all this discourse that was poured on the folks attending the WSIS meetings. This whole process tried -and is still trying- to instrumentalize ONGs for disseminating ICT gear at any cost for the POSSIBLE "benefit" of DCs and their populations. Whereas the REAL benefit goes to the private sector : manufacturers, vendors, advisers, service providers and operators. I think that the economical and above all the financial aspects and issues of ICT/BB dissemination in DCs, let's say sub-Saharean Africa, should be thoroughly and objectively analyzed and published. Just as an example : Does Africa REALLY need eight submarine cables from Dakar to the Cape (there are three ones in service and by the end of next year there are five other ones to come) ? At an average cost of 300 to 400 M$, this means a total investment of around 3 billion dollars ! This is 2 billions too much, or a hold-up of 2 billions from the basic needs in DCs, i.e. food, water, sanitation and energy (remember : WEHAB, the Jo'burg UN Develoment Summit program, nowhere even mentions ICT !). Who will ever carry out such a survey ? Maybe research teams in Universities, through a holistic, multidisciplinary approach (human, sociologic, economic, financial, environmental, ...). Why not with you, Michael ? In the meantime, this hold-up is sponsored by the UN and -first of all- the ITU. BTW : The CS in completely absent in this "BB4D Commission". This shows how high is multi-stakeholdership right now, and how inclusive are the two vice-chairs of the WSIS ... and of the "Commission". As far as the co-chairs are concerned, the first one isn't actually an example of democratic governance, and the second is quite simply the wealthiest man in the world ... A methaphor when we consider the billion people still suffering from poverty and hoping for a better future. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT and CESIR > Message du 28/09/10 07:25 > De : "Michael Gurstein" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] New Blogpost: Investment 58-Poverty 14: The UN's Broadband Commission for Digital Development vs. the MDGs > > > > This may be of interest... > > M > > > Investment 58-Poverty 14: The UN's Broadband Commission for Digital > Development vs. the MDGs > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/investment-58%E2%80%94poverty-14-th > e-un%E2%80%99s-broadband-commission-for-digital-development-vs-the-mdgs/ > >____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 jcancio at mityc.es Fri Oct 1 09:25:04 2010 From: jcancio at mityc.es (Cancio Melia, Jorge) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 15:25:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] UNDESA consultation: Enhanced Cooperation on International PublicPolicy Issues Pertaining to the Internet In-Reply-To: <1307106566-1285920741-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1812899282-@bda2016.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> References: <22052842.11264.1285888241558.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g03> <1307106566-1285920741-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1812899282-@bda2016.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <7284FCC0EF130B4E9C9287B9681048351A767066@SRVC252.mityc.age> FYI: http://www.unpan.org/DPADM/EGovernment/WSISFollowup/tabid/1401/language/en-US/Default.aspx best Jorge -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 1 09:32:32 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:32:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: <51A488AF3EF2453DAD807403C1BA9B89@userPC> References: <51A488AF3EF2453DAD807403C1BA9B89@userPC> Message-ID: Hi, that sounds great. is it an effort you can take on and organize within the the IGC? would love to see a nuanced paper in response the the BB commission come out of this group. would love to see lots of nuanced responses come out of this group. but somebody has to take the time to put a first draft on the table that they can in an relatively egoless way turn change control of over to the group and even perhaps to another editor. and not many of us have taken that first step. these sort of things are member driven activities. and i don't mean having idea, i mean doing the so-called heavy lifting. so after your adventure, i do hope to see you take on the lead in some of the activities that would make the IGF a better caucus as you see it. cheers a. On 1 Oct 2010, at 03:52, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I think more than a bit of "outreach" is required... It needs to be part of > a worked through strategy and broader agreed upon initiative... Developing a > paper in (nuanced) response to the BB Commission report might be one way to > start. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 7:22 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] Criterion for charter voting > > > hi, > > I know there is a stream of new subscribers, and occasionally a new voice. > > i think we should have more outreach and i think it would be great if > someone organized it. > > maybe when you come back from your adventure. > > cheers > > a. > > > On 29 Sep 2010, at 18:58, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> >> I think what I mean is obvious especially since I've been saying more >> or less the same thing for years... Yes, I think that there should be >> a deliberate plan/program of engagement with the broader civil society >> and particularly those elements of civil society who are active around >> ICTs, social justice and the Internet globally--and there are >> multitudes. The folks active in the HR caucus for example seem to >> have managed to do something of this reasonably successfully at least >> as I have been observing them from a distance. >> >> Personally, I go in and out of direct involvements which would be of >> interest to or interested in IG issues depending on a variety of >> personal and other circumstances... At the moment I could certainly >> engage with sympathetic folks in Canada and and to a lesser extent in >> various other parts of the world where I happen to be working/doing >> research etc. but the problem is that to my mind we (IGC) have allowed >> ourselves to accept a way too narrow definition of what IG means, >> rather narrower I would say than even the IGF as a whole is now coming >> to accept and certainly narrower than would be of interest to many of >> those who would (and should) be our allies and compadres. >> >> Every year about this time I write the same thing and every year folks >> move on around "the bad relay point/me" but from what I can see (and >> again from a >> distance) not having the means or the passion to get myself to Vilnius, > the >> IGC is, if anything, dwindling as older folks drift away and not a lot of >> younger folks are recruited and certainly no great tranches of broader > civil >> society are engaged with. >> >> But I'm off on a bit of a personal adventure for the next while and >> will have only limited time to engage in a debate on these issues if >> any should result from these rather gnarly remarks. >> >> Best to all, >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 3:04 PM >> To: IGC >> Subject: Re: [governance] Criterion for charter voting >> >> >> >> and why do you mean by this? >> >> is there some activity you think the group should be engaged in, that >> it is not? >> have you been doing outreach bringing in new people? >> >> a. >> >> On 29 Sep 2010, at 16:25, Michael Gurstein wrote: >> >>> I don't mean to be curmudgeonly but I really would have preferred to >>> see some of the energy and creativity that is going into ensuring the >> probity of the electoral system of this several handfuls of people >> most of whom know each other by sight over almost a decade, into >> broadening and deepening the group so that it has some broader >> legitimacy (and not just >> legalistically) as a voice for civil society in these most significant >> areas. >>> >>> Mike ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Oct 1 09:52:10 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:52:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <058685E1D6ED497FA7386407793B7886@userPC> Message-ID: On 9/30/10, Mawaki Chango wrote: > In conclusion, for my part, I'm not partaking in a debate as to whether that > rule is a perfect or the best one. If people want to see it changed, I'm > sure the charter provides for ways to initiate such action. I hope it's > understood that it is not my intent to speak against a motion for amendment. > I believe the problem initially was whether with respect to our latest > decisionmaking procedures we were following our charter provisions as they > stand now (and I was commenting on a particular interpretation of the rule > which did not reflect, in my view, the positive spirit in which it was set > up. Nevertheless, even with the right interpretation, the rule can still be > challenged and changed.) My comments challenge the interpretation of the "rule" -- I contest the very meaning you and others assign to it because it conflicts with other portions of the charter and important principles of democracy and legal construction. Due to such conflicts, among the range of interpretations available, the one that results in absurd losses of rights to a population that goes well beyond a hypothetical population of "gamers" (who, should have an equal vote anyway) and so is unreasonable, unfair AND (most importantly) not the correct or the best interpretation of the Charter. > > Thanks > > Mawaki > > >> >> -- >> Paul R Lehto, J.D. >> P.O. Box 1 >> Ishpeming, MI 49849 >> lehto.paul at gmail.com >> 906-204-2334 >> > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Oct 1 10:25:29 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 11:25:29 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] IGF Consultation meeting Nov 22-23, Geneva announced In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00b501cb6174$8694cb30$93be6190$@uol.com.br> Thanks Izumi Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464 -----Mensagem original----- De: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] Em nome de Izumi AIZU Enviada em: quarta-feira, 29 de setembro de 2010 03:30 Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org Assunto: [governance] IGF Consultation meeting Nov 22-23, Geneva announced Dear list, Consultations/Meeting on Taking Stock of the Vilnius Meeting has just been announced at the official IGF website: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ Dates: November 22, 23 Venue: Palais des Nations, Geneva 22 November: Open Consultations. 23 November: MAG meeting. There's an open call to submit comments and also MAG questionnaire I think we should prepare our comments on the continuation matter, and also ask for the renewal of MAG members. The trick for the latter is when. Sooner, or when we discuss about the "improvement" of IGF etc? I see pros and cons on this. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Oct 1 11:06:06 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:06:06 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] IGF Consultation meeting Nov 22-23, Geneva announced References: <00b501cb6174$8694cb30$93be6190$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07208@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Does somebody know whether there is a meeting of the UNCSTD on November 24 to discuss "improvement"`? wolfgang ________________________________ Fra: Vanda UOL [mailto:vanda at uol.com.br] Sendt: fr 01-10-2010 16:25 Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Izumi AIZU' Emne: RES: [governance] IGF Consultation meeting Nov 22-23, Geneva announced Thanks Izumi Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 - 1407,8 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464 -----Mensagem original----- De: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] Em nome de Izumi AIZU Enviada em: quarta-feira, 29 de setembro de 2010 03:30 Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org Assunto: [governance] IGF Consultation meeting Nov 22-23, Geneva announced Dear list, Consultations/Meeting on Taking Stock of the Vilnius Meeting has just been announced at the official IGF website: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ Dates: November 22, 23 Venue: Palais des Nations, Geneva 22 November: Open Consultations. 23 November: MAG meeting. There's an open call to submit comments and also MAG questionnaire I think we should prepare our comments on the continuation matter, and also ask for the renewal of MAG members. The trick for the latter is when. Sooner, or when we discuss about the "improvement" of IGF etc? I see pros and cons on this. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From meryem at marzouki.info Fri Oct 1 12:06:41 2010 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 18:06:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a curmudgeon? In-Reply-To: <3747F228-0546-460F-BAB2-93CC61EA4AAD@psg.com> References: <57B7CD8DEA1645DEAEECCBF39E42F448@userPC> <3747F228-0546-460F-BAB2-93CC61EA4AAD@psg.com> Message-ID: <8D61E40B-6DE0-4519-9C30-4017004507B9@marzouki.info> > Le 30 sept. 10 à 01:22, Avri Doria a écrit : > >> hi, >> >> I know there is a stream of new subscribers, and occasionally a >> new voice. >> >> i think we should have more outreach and i think it would be great >> if someone organized it. >> >> maybe when you come back from your adventure. >> >> cheers >> >> a. That is very true. *Occasionally* a new voice. It happens that I've compiled some stats on IGC mailing list for a presentation I gave in July 2009 at the 2009 International Association for Media and Communication Research Conference in Mexico City. The stats were compiled on the more than 13,000 posts sent to this list from 1st January 2006 (my focus was the post-WSIS period) to mid- July 2009. Since the list subscribers turnover is not available to simple list subscribers like me, I had to restrict my compilation to the contributors only (i.e. people who actually posted messages to the list). So "participation" means having sent at least one post. Here is a flavor of the results (hoping the graphics will appear): 1/ IGC Participation Duration: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: pastedGraphic.tiff Type: image/tiff Size: 23672 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- Contributors (posters) only. 304 over 4 years. As of mid-July 2009. Total of 13,157 posts. 16% (49) participate since 2006. 45% (135): 1 year only participation (2006: 36; 2007: 31; 2008: 44; 2009: 24) 25% (76): 2 years participation (not necessarily consecutive) 14% (44): 3 years participation (not necessarily consecutive) 2/ IGC Participation Turnover: Contributors (posters) only. 304 over 4 years. As of mid-July 2009. Total of 13,157 posts. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pastedGraphic.tiff Type: image/tiff Size: 39086 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- Legend: "Old": have participated in previous years "Join": haven't participated in previous years "Left": haven't participated the current year, but have previously participated "Total": "Old" + "Join" 3/ IGC Participation diversity: Contributors (posters) only. 304 over 4 years. As of mid-July 2009. Total of 13,157 posts. 50% by 15 contributors (11 participants for 4 years). Top 2: average of 200 posts/year Next 6: average of 100 Next 7: average of 90-70 220 contributors posted less than 20 messages each 4/ IGC Participation "coziness": Well, I didn't dare compiling how many among the 304 posters I personally know and have met, and in any case this wouldn't have reasonably found its place in an academic presentation.. But this feeling of IGC as a "coziness space", which might be corraborated through various indicators, is obviously strong, and rather strange, speaking of a global civil society caucus, even though only dealing with Internet governance issues. My conclusion is that, far from being curmudgeonly as he warned this wasn't his intention, Michael raised a very legitimate and of utmost importance question. It probably deserves more serious thinking than what it got so far, but obviously only in case democratic participation is an issue.. Best, Meryem Le 30 sept. 10 à 01:22, Avri Doria a écrit : > hi, > > I know there is a stream of new subscribers, and occasionally a new > voice. > > i think we should have more outreach and i think it would be great > if someone organized it. > > maybe when you come back from your adventure. > > cheers > > a. > > > On 29 Sep 2010, at 18:58, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> >> I think what I mean is obvious especially since I've been saying >> more or >> less the same thing for years... Yes, I think that there should be a >> deliberate plan/program of engagement with the broader civil >> society and >> particularly those elements of civil society who are active around >> ICTs, >> social justice and the Internet globally--and there are >> multitudes. The >> folks active in the HR caucus for example seem to have managed to do >> something of this reasonably successfully at least as I have been >> observing >> them from a distance. >> >> Personally, I go in and out of direct involvements which would be of >> interest to or interested in IG issues depending on a variety of >> personal >> and other circumstances... At the moment I could certainly engage >> with >> sympathetic folks in Canada and and to a lesser extent in various >> other >> parts of the world where I happen to be working/doing research >> etc. but the >> problem is that to my mind we (IGC) have allowed ourselves to >> accept a way >> too narrow definition of what IG means, rather narrower I would >> say than >> even the IGF as a whole is now coming to accept and certainly >> narrower than >> would be of interest to many of those who would (and should) be >> our allies >> and compadres. >> >> Every year about this time I write the same thing and every year >> folks move >> on around "the bad relay point/me" but from what I can see (and >> again from a >> distance) not having the means or the passion to get myself to >> Vilnius, the >> IGC is, if anything, dwindling as older folks drift away and not a >> lot of >> younger folks are recruited and certainly no great tranches of >> broader civil >> society are engaged with. >> >> But I'm off on a bit of a personal adventure for the next while >> and will >> have only limited time to engage in a debate on these issues if >> any should >> result from these rather gnarly remarks. >> >> Best to all, >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 3:04 PM >> To: IGC >> Subject: Re: [governance] Criterion for charter voting >> >> >> >> and why do you mean by this? >> >> is there some activity you think the group should be engaged in, >> that it is >> not? >> have you been doing outreach bringing in new people? >> >> a. >> >> On 29 Sep 2010, at 16:25, Michael Gurstein wrote: >> >>> I don't mean to be curmudgeonly but I really would have preferred to >>> see some of the energy and creativity that is going into ensuring >>> the >> probity of the electoral system of this several handfuls of people >> most of >> whom know each other by sight over almost a decade, into >> broadening and >> deepening the group so that it has some broader legitimacy (and >> not just >> legalistically) as a voice for civil society in these most >> significant >> areas. >>> >>> Mike ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > 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 Fri Oct 1 12:07:41 2010 From: graciela at nupef.org.br (Graciela Selaimen) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:07:41 -0300 Subject: [governance] Thanks to Ginger In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CA6074D.9060001@nupef.org.br> Indeed, Ginger has been brilliant in this challenging role. Thanks a lot, Ginger!! best regards, Graciela Ian Peter escreveu: > Seeing its just a few days until a new co coordinator is announced, and at > that time we will all want to congratulate the new appointment - > > I would like us to congratulate and thank Ginger Paque for her excellent > work as a co coordinator for the last two years. As the person who was co > coordinator with her for the first of those two years - Jeremy shared this > role for the rest of her term - I am very aware of the dedication that > Ginger brought to this role, and the hard work she has done in keeping > things running smoothly. > > It's not easy or trivial being a co coordinator of this Caucus. It requires > both hard work and skills, and Ginger brought both to the role in abundant > quantities. I invite others to say a few words, but certainly I know I speak > for just about everyone here in thanking Ginger for a job really well done, > and a great contribution in this role towards civil society's active > involvement in Internet Governance. > > Thanks Ginger - I know you are not leaving us or vacating the field, but > know that what you have done here over the last two years has been truly > appreciated. > > Many Thanks, > > > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Oct 1 12:32:25 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (vanda) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:32:25 -0300 Subject: [governance] Thanks to Ginger In-Reply-To: <4CA6074D.9060001@nupef.org.br> References: <4CA6074D.9060001@nupef.org.br> Message-ID: <4ca60d19bef8a_6d29139a67414a@weasel17.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 avri at psg.com Fri Oct 1 14:20:43 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:20:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a curmudgeon? In-Reply-To: <8D61E40B-6DE0-4519-9C30-4017004507B9@marzouki.info> References: <57B7CD8DEA1645DEAEECCBF39E42F448@userPC> <3747F228-0546-460F-BAB2-93CC61EA4AAD@psg.com> <8D61E40B-6DE0-4519-9C30-4017004507B9@marzouki.info> Message-ID: On 1 Oct 2010, at 12:06, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > My conclusion is that, far from being curmudgeonly as he warned this wasn't his intention, Michael raised a very legitimate and of utmost importance question. It probably deserves more serious thinking than what it got so far, but obviously only in case democratic participation is an issue.. wow, that is loaded language. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Fri Oct 1 14:27:05 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:27:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] simple list subscribers was Re: [] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a curmudgeon? In-Reply-To: <8D61E40B-6DE0-4519-9C30-4017004507B9@marzouki.info> References: <57B7CD8DEA1645DEAEECCBF39E42F448@userPC> <3747F228-0546-460F-BAB2-93CC61EA4AAD@psg.com> <8D61E40B-6DE0-4519-9C30-4017004507B9@marzouki.info> Message-ID: On 1 Oct 2010, at 12:06, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Since the list subscribers turnover is not available to simple list subscribers like me, did you ever ask anyone? while the mailing lists do not contain the historical data, as one of those maintaining the list I have been taking yearly snapshot of the membership just in case it was necessary to back-up the list at anypoint. as for whether single list subscribers can get a list of all of the subscribers, that would be a privacy issue. if there was a decision in the group to make the subscribers list public, i expect the setting could be flipped to make it so. I have never seen such a request. as for the care and feeding of the list, while it is the co-coodirnator who are in charge of that, i do help them from time to time. i have offered to resign from the task of several occasions. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Fri Oct 1 14:28:43 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:28:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Data Question: Re: [] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a curmudgeon? In-Reply-To: <8D61E40B-6DE0-4519-9C30-4017004507B9@marzouki.info> References: <57B7CD8DEA1645DEAEECCBF39E42F448@userPC> <3747F228-0546-460F-BAB2-93CC61EA4AAD@psg.com> <8D61E40B-6DE0-4519-9C30-4017004507B9@marzouki.info> Message-ID: <05892E82-DB38-4470-B627-710E23634FB9@psg.com> One question on your data, does it take into account the people who have changed their subscription address? a. On 1 Oct 2010, at 12:06, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> Le 30 sept. 10 à 01:22, Avri Doria a écrit : >> >>> hi, >>> >>> I know there is a stream of new subscribers, and occasionally a new voice. >>> >>> i think we should have more outreach and i think it would be great if someone organized it. >>> >>> maybe when you come back from your adventure. >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> a. > > That is very true. *Occasionally* a new voice. > It happens that I've compiled some stats on IGC mailing list for a presentation I gave in July 2009 at the 2009 International Association for Media and Communication Research Conference in Mexico City. > The stats were compiled on the more than 13,000 posts sent to this list from 1st January 2006 (my focus was the post-WSIS period) to mid-July 2009. > Since the list subscribers turnover is not available to simple list subscribers like me, I had to restrict my compilation to the contributors only (i.e. people who actually posted messages to the list). So "participation" means having sent at least one post. > Here is a flavor of the results (hoping the graphics will appear): > > 1/ IGC Participation Duration: > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > Contributors (posters) only. 304 over 4 years. As of mid-July 2009. Total of 13,157 posts. > 16% (49) participate since 2006. > 45% (135): 1 year only participation (2006: 36; 2007: 31; 2008: 44; 2009: 24) > 25% (76): 2 years participation (not necessarily consecutive) > 14% (44): 3 years participation (not necessarily consecutive) > > 2/ IGC Participation Turnover: > Contributors (posters) only. 304 over 4 years. As of mid-July 2009. Total of 13,157 posts. > > > Legend: > "Old": have participated in previous years > "Join": haven't participated in previous years > "Left": haven't participated the current year, but have previously participated > "Total": "Old" + "Join" > > 3/ IGC Participation diversity: > Contributors (posters) only. 304 over 4 years. As of mid-July 2009. Total of 13,157 posts. > > 50% by 15 contributors (11 participants for 4 years). > Top 2: average of 200 posts/year > Next 6: average of 100 > Next 7: average of 90-70 > 220 contributors posted less than 20 messages each > > 4/ IGC Participation "coziness": > Well, I didn't dare compiling how many among the 304 posters I personally know and have met, and in any case this wouldn't have reasonably found its place in an academic presentation.. But this feeling of IGC as a "coziness space", which might be corraborated through various indicators, is obviously strong, and rather strange, speaking of a global civil society caucus, even though only dealing with Internet governance issues. > > My conclusion is that, far from being curmudgeonly as he warned this wasn't his intention, Michael raised a very legitimate and of utmost importance question. It probably deserves more serious thinking than what it got so far, but obviously only in case democratic participation is an issue.. > > Best, > Meryem > > Le 30 sept. 10 à 01:22, Avri Doria a écrit : > >> hi, >> >> I know there is a stream of new subscribers, and occasionally a new voice. >> >> i think we should have more outreach and i think it would be great if someone organized it. >> >> maybe when you come back from your adventure. >> >> cheers >> >> a. >> >> >> On 29 Sep 2010, at 18:58, Michael Gurstein wrote: >> >>> >>> I think what I mean is obvious especially since I've been saying more or >>> less the same thing for years... Yes, I think that there should be a >>> deliberate plan/program of engagement with the broader civil society and >>> particularly those elements of civil society who are active around ICTs, >>> social justice and the Internet globally--and there are multitudes. The >>> folks active in the HR caucus for example seem to have managed to do >>> something of this reasonably successfully at least as I have been observing >>> them from a distance. >>> >>> Personally, I go in and out of direct involvements which would be of >>> interest to or interested in IG issues depending on a variety of personal >>> and other circumstances... At the moment I could certainly engage with >>> sympathetic folks in Canada and and to a lesser extent in various other >>> parts of the world where I happen to be working/doing research etc. but the >>> problem is that to my mind we (IGC) have allowed ourselves to accept a way >>> too narrow definition of what IG means, rather narrower I would say than >>> even the IGF as a whole is now coming to accept and certainly narrower than >>> would be of interest to many of those who would (and should) be our allies >>> and compadres. >>> >>> Every year about this time I write the same thing and every year folks move >>> on around "the bad relay point/me" but from what I can see (and again from a >>> distance) not having the means or the passion to get myself to Vilnius, the >>> IGC is, if anything, dwindling as older folks drift away and not a lot of >>> younger folks are recruited and certainly no great tranches of broader civil >>> society are engaged with. >>> >>> But I'm off on a bit of a personal adventure for the next while and will >>> have only limited time to engage in a debate on these issues if any should >>> result from these rather gnarly remarks. >>> >>> Best to all, >>> >>> M >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 3:04 PM >>> To: IGC >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Criterion for charter voting >>> >>> >>> >>> and why do you mean by this? >>> >>> is there some activity you think the group should be engaged in, that it is >>> not? >>> have you been doing outreach bringing in new people? >>> >>> a. >>> >>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 16:25, Michael Gurstein wrote: >>> >>>> I don't mean to be curmudgeonly but I really would have preferred to >>>> see some of the energy and creativity that is going into ensuring the >>> probity of the electoral system of this several handfuls of people most of >>> whom know each other by sight over almost a decade, into broadening and >>> deepening the group so that it has some broader legitimacy (and not just >>> legalistically) as a voice for civil society in these most significant >>> areas. >>>> >>>> Mike ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Fri Oct 1 14:49:16 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:49:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <058685E1D6ED497FA7386407793B7886@userPC> Message-ID: Conflict of interpretations? That happens. As far as I can remember, what you call "not correct... interpretation" was the idea at the moment of drafting the charter. Is it then an "interpretation" like any other? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. Can it be wrong from certain perspective? Of course, it can (just as it can be right from some other people's perspective.) And again, I'm sure there are effective ways to address those tensions you see 'within and without' the charter. But until then, it is the charter we have, our charter to all of us --the outcome of a democratic process (which, most certainly, does not make it a perfect product.) Mawaki On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Paul Lehto wrote: > On 9/30/10, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > In conclusion, for my part, I'm not partaking in a debate as to whether > that > > rule is a perfect or the best one. If people want to see it changed, I'm > > sure the charter provides for ways to initiate such action. I hope it's > > understood that it is not my intent to speak against a motion for > amendment. > > I believe the problem initially was whether with respect to our latest > > decisionmaking procedures we were following our charter provisions as > they > > stand now (and I was commenting on a particular interpretation of the > rule > > which did not reflect, in my view, the positive spirit in which it was > set > > up. Nevertheless, even with the right interpretation, the rule can still > be > > challenged and changed.) > > My comments challenge the interpretation of the "rule" -- I contest > the very meaning you and others assign to it because it conflicts with > other portions of the charter and important principles of democracy > and legal construction. > > Due to such conflicts, among the range of interpretations available, > the one that results in absurd losses of rights to a population that > goes well beyond a hypothetical population of "gamers" (who, should > have an equal vote anyway) and so is unreasonable, unfair AND (most > importantly) not the correct or the best interpretation of the > Charter. > > > > Thanks > > > > Mawaki > > > > > >> > >> -- > >> Paul R Lehto, J.D. > >> P.O. Box 1 > >> Ishpeming, MI 49849 > >> lehto.paul at gmail.com > >> 906-204-2334 > >> > > > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-2334 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Oct 1 14:57:22 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 06:57:22 +1200 Subject: [governance] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a curmudgeon? In-Reply-To: References: <57B7CD8DEA1645DEAEECCBF39E42F448@userPC> <3747F228-0546-460F-BAB2-93CC61EA4AAD@psg.com> <8D61E40B-6DE0-4519-9C30-4017004507B9@marzouki.info> Message-ID: Dear All, Michael raised a valid point. As a relatively new kid on the block, I think that there should be an information (FAQ) list of URLs to show members how they can involved ie. increased and widened participation. What essentially is the "letter" and "spirit". Criticism must not be taken personally but is a mere tool in refinement and it is a wise man or person who accepts correction (ancient proverb). I love what CS Lewis said in his classic, "An Experiment in Criticism", "My own pair of eyes are not enough for me, let me see through other pairs of eyes." Warm Regards from sunny Fiji, Sala On 10/2/10, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 1 Oct 2010, at 12:06, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> My conclusion is that, far from being curmudgeonly as he warned this >> wasn't his intention, Michael raised a very legitimate and of utmost >> importance question. It probably deserves more serious thinking than what >> it got so far, but obviously only in case democratic participation is an >> issue.. > > > wow, that is loaded language. > > 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 -- Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro P.O.Box 17862 Suva Fiji Islands Cell: +679 9982851 Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj "Wisdom is far better than riches." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Fri Oct 1 15:28:00 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 15:28:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <058685E1D6ED497FA7386407793B7886@userPC> Message-ID: On 10/1/10, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Is it then an "interpretation" like any other? I don't > know, I'm not a lawyer. I understand you're not a lawyer. If you were, it would be easier to explain that a "plain meaning" or "intent" interpretation that conflicts with other portions of the Charter and also does so in an undemocratic fashion is not something to be embraced. Such an interpretation would only be accepted if it were the only possible interpretation that made sense of the document as a whole - and you can't just focus on one phrase in isolation. Given that you approve of something that takes away my right to vote, you'll recognize my restraint in merely saying in response that people should be more careful when they are not trained in an area and their actions take away the rights of others. This is a "governance" list and I hadn't heard the intent was to model ways in which to exclude others from the most important decisions, such as Constitutions or charters. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From meryem at marzouki.info Fri Oct 1 15:40:08 2010 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 21:40:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a curmudgeon? In-Reply-To: References: <57B7CD8DEA1645DEAEECCBF39E42F448@userPC> <3747F228-0546-460F-BAB2-93CC61EA4AAD@psg.com> <8D61E40B-6DE0-4519-9C30-4017004507B9@marzouki.info> Message-ID: <84558409-4760-4A6A-B552-6FC254F79B83@marzouki.info> I'm merging three questions (under three different subject lines). As a general answer first: no one should take it personally. there are much more academics in the field who writes papers based on compiled statitics from this list (and others as well) than one might think. Furthermore, the comments and conclusions that could be inferred from these stats concern all of us as list members. There is no particular position here, and no particular interference, apart from strict technical management, from those who are list owners and/ moderators (being myself managing and moderating mailing lists, I know exactly what it means). Now some specific answers, although I would have expected a discussion on what these data might mean for us all as list members and contributors, following Michael's question, rather than an unnecessary defensive attitude: no one is attacked here. Le 1 oct. 10 à 20:20, Avri Doria a écrit : > On 1 Oct 2010, at 12:06, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> My conclusion is that, far from being curmudgeonly as he warned >> this wasn't his intention, Michael raised a very legitimate and of >> utmost importance question. It probably deserves more serious >> thinking than what it got so far, but obviously only in case >> democratic participation is an issue.. > > wow, that is loaded language. Yes, it is. In line with Michael's question on openness and democratic participation (which is much more than reaching out), that I fully share. Either we care about this issue, and then we should discuss it serenely and whenever possible take action in thirs regard, or we don't and stay in this coziness (cet "entre-soi", as we say in French). > Le 1 oct. 10 à 20:27, Avri Doria a écrit : >> >> On 1 Oct 2010, at 12:06, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> >>> Since the list subscribers turnover is not available to simple >>> list subscribers like me, >> >> did you ever ask anyone? No. And I mentioned this not as a recrimination, but as a point of methodological explanation. >> while the mailing lists do not contain the historical data, as one >> of those maintaining the list I have been taking yearly snapshot >> of the membership just in case it was necessary to back-up the >> list at anypoint. I would be interested in working on those. The number of lurkers -- and if possible, the analysis of their motivations or non motivations -- always says a lot about a mailing list. But I've found - and I still find - it a bit tricky to ask, being at the same time a list member and a list "analyser". What I've observed is that the overall number of subscribers (which is available to all) doesn't seem to have increased a lot since the beginning. This from my remembering of the number I've seen each time I needed to go to the web interface of the list, but I haven't taken notes, though. >> as for whether single list subscribers can get a list of all of >> the subscribers, that would be a privacy issue. Having been on this list since its very starting point (or almost so, at least earlier than my analysis starting point by far: 2003 or so), I know this. One of the reasons why I haven't asked (no reason to give the information to me, and not to, say, other researchers willing to use the same data, or even the whole list membership). > Le 1 oct. 10 à 20:28, Avri Doria a écrit : >> >> One question on your data, does it take into account the people >> who have changed their subscription address? I worked on the email addresses. With some cleaning/corrections when I knew that it was the same person. But actually, this doesn't really matter when working on a sample of more than 13,000. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 1 16:00:57 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 16:00:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a curmudgeon? In-Reply-To: <84558409-4760-4A6A-B552-6FC254F79B83@marzouki.info> References: <57B7CD8DEA1645DEAEECCBF39E42F448@userPC> <3747F228-0546-460F-BAB2-93CC61EA4AAD@psg.com> <8D61E40B-6DE0-4519-9C30-4017004507B9@marzouki.info> <84558409-4760-4A6A-B552-6FC254F79B83@marzouki.info> Message-ID: hi, i felt that Michael was attacking. It was a yearly attack and then nothing is contributed to make anything any different. And i felt that you joined him. Though my questions about you data and others I can think of on your methodology which was not covered, are reasonable scientific things to ask about before one looks at results ad starts to take them seriously. I love to see the paper where the methodology is explained. Using the data to make a point without the science is somewhat empty. So i wasn't t being defensive, and in fact often consider 'the ' don't be so defensive' to be the passive aggressive response to being questioned (that was the MA in counseling psychology speaking, please forgive me, she escapes every once in a while) So, I was responding. None of it is my responsibility except for any individual action i may or may not take to work with the IGC in reaching its goals, and i have no reason to be defensive. But as a member of the group, I will question. I would love to see this group work on more and to have more contributors. But I do believe it is the individual and collective responsibility of the members of the group to make it happen. Accusing some amorphous list of being inadequate, is frankly speaking from my point of view, inadequate. If people want the IGC to change, they need to work on it, not complain about it. and what we seem to have is a few people who occasionally pop up, complain and then disappear again until their favorite cue for complaining comes up again. a. On 1 Oct 2010, at 15:40, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Now some specific answers, although I would have expected a discussion on what these data might mean for us all as list members and contributors, following Michael's question, rather than an unnecessary defensive attitude: no one is attacked here. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 1 17:02:44 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 05:02:44 +0800 Subject: [governance] simple list subscribers was Re: [] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a curmudgeon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Well in for a dime, in for a dollar... How many on this list would accept that the full range of those who might legitimately consider themselves part of the Internet Governance Caucus are constituted by those on this email list (whatever the number or whatever the outcome of this dare I say, tedious* and legalistic divertissement)? To rephrase, is this all there is? Mike C. *I consider the current discussion on who constitutes a member in good standing of the IGC tedious and legalistic because I think under the circumsntances that the likelihood or even possibility/risk of any significant shenanigans concerning voting on this list to be very close to zero--the group is small, most everyone knows everyone else, and the stakes aren't all that significant... Good idea to get it satisficed in anticipation of any of the above characteristics changing very much, but going much beyond some sort of best efforts at this point seems to me to be, well... -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 2:27 AM To: IGC Subject: [governance] simple list subscribers was Re: [] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a curmudgeon? On 1 Oct 2010, at 12:06, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Since the list subscribers turnover is not available to simple list > subscribers like me, did you ever ask anyone? while the mailing lists do not contain the historical data, as one of those maintaining the list I have been taking yearly snapshot of the membership just in case it was necessary to back-up the list at anypoint. as for whether single list subscribers can get a list of all of the subscribers, that would be a privacy issue. if there was a decision in the group to make the subscribers list public, i expect the setting could be flipped to make it so. I have never seen such a request. as for the care and feeding of the list, while it is the co-coodirnator who are in charge of that, i do help them from time to time. i have offered to resign from the task of several occasions. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 17:33:38 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:33:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Thanks to Ginger In-Reply-To: <54718B52-D2A6-44FC-9E54-2F96767E5A1C@ciroap.org> References: <54718B52-D2A6-44FC-9E54-2F96767E5A1C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <612029.50453.qm@web55204.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Thank you Ginger You did a great job and were always calm and collected. I enjoyed working with you . regards Shaila Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! FromJeremy Malcolm To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 7:02:28 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Thanks to Ginger Ginger made it very easy for me to slip into the co-coordinator seat beside her, and was never anything less than helpful, supportive and wise. Thank you Ginger and I wish you all the best as you take a well-deserved rest from coordination of the IGC. -- 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 Oct 1 18:42:49 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 18:42:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a In-Reply-To: References: <57B7CD8DEA1645DEAEECCBF39E42F448@userPC> <3747F228-0546-460F-BAB2-93CC61EA4AAD@psg.com> <8D61E40B-6DE0-4519-9C30-4017004507B9@marzouki.info> , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01978B0F06@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Sala, To Avri's point that it is up to folks on the list to make it whatever they want: thanks for volunteering to prep an IGC FAQ and list of URLs : ) With that 'done' I have been meaning to raise a second point which does touch on Michael's curmudgeonly critique re the distance between IGC/IGF and folks on the ground actually trying to do ICT4D, with or without broadband to acknowledge Jean-Louis' point. Here's my 5 cents: UN - GAID is working on something they are calling the 'e-Nabler' which would essentially be an online/semi-automated strategic plan development tool, intended to help folks - on the ground - trying to plan - ICT deployments for development. Frankly the thing could be a flop/waste of time; or maybe not. It is intended to provide tools to help folks go from Millenium Development Goals to specific actionalble implementations, which would be a good thing, if done right. They acknowledge that they are particularly weak on - policy. We IGCers seem to prefer the word 'governance.' So my thought: what if Wolfgang's 'messages from IGF' actually had - particular receivers in mind? Namely, folks on the ground trying to do ICT4D. This would be relatively simple to implement, since the 'e-nabler' is theoretically updated/refreshed regularly - say annually. Like when there are fresh 'messages.' So each year's IGF process could have a known target audience, which would help make UN-GAID's grand plan more viable - since if there is not fresh input the thing will grow stale and fall apart quickly I warned them last month. Anyway, the e-nabler is in the early beta stage, but if this doesn't seem entirely crazy as a notion to the folks bridging IGF & GAID - such as Derrick, Marilyn, and a few others could talk it up a little on the gaid side, and - igc can advocate and/or prepare to implement -in its workshops next year - messages to gaid/to planners trying to get things done in challenging circumstances. Of course messages could come in both directions, but seeking to build in feedback loops is generally a good thing right. Anyway, just a thought, which if some of you like - I also volunteer Sala to put into motion : ) Lee ________________________________________ From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 2:57 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a curmudgeon? Dear All, Michael raised a valid point. As a relatively new kid on the block, I think that there should be an information (FAQ) list of URLs to show members how they can involved ie. increased and widened participation. What essentially is the "letter" and "spirit". Criticism must not be taken personally but is a mere tool in refinement and it is a wise man or person who accepts correction (ancient proverb). I love what CS Lewis said in his classic, "An Experiment in Criticism", "My own pair of eyes are not enough for me, let me see through other pairs of eyes." Warm Regards from sunny Fiji, Sala On 10/2/10, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 1 Oct 2010, at 12:06, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> My conclusion is that, far from being curmudgeonly as he warned this >> wasn't his intention, Michael raised a very legitimate and of utmost >> importance question. It probably deserves more serious thinking than what >> it got so far, but obviously only in case democratic participation is an >> issue.. > > > wow, that is loaded language. > > 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 -- Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro P.O.Box 17862 Suva Fiji Islands Cell: +679 9982851 Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj "Wisdom is far better than riches." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Fri Oct 1 19:28:13 2010 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 20:28:13 -0300 Subject: [governance] Thanks to Ginger In-Reply-To: <612029.50453.qm@web55204.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <54718B52-D2A6-44FC-9E54-2F96767E5A1C@ciroap.org> <612029.50453.qm@web55204.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: My thanks and congratulations for Ginger, too! she si great in all what she does! My best wishes, Rox 2010/10/1 shaila mistry > Thank you Ginger > You did a great job and were always calm and collected. I enjoyed working > with you . > regards > Shaila > > > *Life is too short ....challenge the rules*** > > *Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly*** > > *Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! *** > > > ** > **FromJeremy Malcolm > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Sent:* Thu, September 30, 2010 7:02:28 PM > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Thanks to Ginger > > Ginger made it very easy for me to slip into the co-coordinator seat beside > her, and was never anything less than helpful, supportive and wise. Thank > you Ginger and I wish you all the best as you take a well-deserved rest from > coordination of the IGC. > > -- > 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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 1 21:16:52 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 09:16:52 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a curmudgeon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: My comments aren't directed to anyone in particular... Hmmm... Well... Since you asked... In fact, in years gone by I have made some specific suggestions and at the time was much more in a position to execute them... My suggestions had to do with linking into the then active Global Telecentre Alliance and the constituent members which represented a global network of quite active grassroots ICT organizations of which I was an executive member. My suggestion at the time (as just recently) was that the issues being addressed were rather too narrow to capture this group's interest so what I was asking for with no response whatsoever was for the IGC group to begin to address the broader range of concerns that these folks were interested in and through which they could become engaged and as I recall I even indicated some of the issues that would be of interest--infrastructure for access, effective use, cost of access and so on... They and I have now moved on (and a couple of potential collaborators on this have now moved on from an involvement with the IGC) and there are new actors a few of which I have contacts with, but most I don't. To say that its up to individuals is all very well except that the 'brand' here doesn't seem to be broadly available to individuals to move forward since it is so closely and organically tied to the yearly rhythms of the IGF which of course is tied into the specific professional interests of various of those who seem to manage the specific IGF brand. It seems to me that if there is to be any follow-up of the kind I am suggesting it would need to have some sort of broader strategic recognition by the group as for example is done systematically with the various determinations of participation relative to the IGF and related. I'm also still waiting for some response to my question which was not meant as rhetorical... Mike C. -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 4:01 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a curmudgeon? hi, i felt that Michael was attacking. It was a yearly attack and then nothing is contributed to make anything any different. And i felt that you joined him. Though my questions about you data and others I can think of on your methodology which was not covered, are reasonable scientific things to ask about before one looks at results ad starts to take them seriously. I love to see the paper where the methodology is explained. Using the data to make a point without the science is somewhat empty. So i wasn't t being defensive, and in fact often consider 'the ' don't be so defensive' to be the passive aggressive response to being questioned (that was the MA in counseling psychology speaking, please forgive me, she escapes every once in a while) So, I was responding. None of it is my responsibility except for any individual action i may or may not take to work with the IGC in reaching its goals, and i have no reason to be defensive. But as a member of the group, I will question. I would love to see this group work on more and to have more contributors. But I do believe it is the individual and collective responsibility of the members of the group to make it happen. Accusing some amorphous list of being inadequate, is frankly speaking from my point of view, inadequate. If people want the IGC to change, they need to work on it, not complain about it. and what we seem to have is a few people who occasionally pop up, complain and then disappear again until their favorite cue for complaining comes up again. a. On 1 Oct 2010, at 15:40, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Now some specific answers, although I would have expected a discussion > on what these data might mean for us all as list members and > contributors, following Michael's question, rather than an unnecessary > defensive attitude: no one is attacked here. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 2 04:13:18 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 10:13:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] eNabler References: <57B7CD8DEA1645DEAEECCBF39E42F448@userPC> <3747F228-0546-460F-BAB2-93CC61EA4AAD@psg.com> <8D61E40B-6DE0-4519-9C30-4017004507B9@marzouki.info> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01978B0F06@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0720B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Lee this is the way would should move forward, linking various initiatives/institutions together in a network sending (political) messages foreward and backward. Such an "IG Web" would reflect/mirror then architecture of the Internet and would leave the knowledge/power/decision making capacity at the "edges" (with the option to enhance knowledge etc. by other peers). On the other hand, by reading the report from the eNabler meeting I was rather confused. Since UNICTTF I feel here running in a revolving door missing the exit: Good intentions, (sometimes) big names, big plans, no money, but rather obscure realities. Anyhow it is always worth to support good intentions and to enable people to do things which are helping to implement MDG and WSIS Goals. Best wishes wolfgang ________________________________ Fra: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sendt: lø 02-10-2010 00:42 Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; Avri Doria Emne: RE: [governance] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a Sala, To Avri's point that it is up to folks on the list to make it whatever they want: thanks for volunteering to prep an IGC FAQ and list of URLs : ) With that 'done' I have been meaning to raise a second point which does touch on Michael's curmudgeonly critique re the distance between IGC/IGF and folks on the ground actually trying to do ICT4D, with or without broadband to acknowledge Jean-Louis' point. Here's my 5 cents: UN - GAID is working on something they are calling the 'e-Nabler' which would essentially be an online/semi-automated strategic plan development tool, intended to help folks - on the ground - trying to plan - ICT deployments for development. Frankly the thing could be a flop/waste of time; or maybe not. It is intended to provide tools to help folks go from Millenium Development Goals to specific actionalble implementations, which would be a good thing, if done right. They acknowledge that they are particularly weak on - policy. We IGCers seem to prefer the word 'governance.' So my thought: what if Wolfgang's 'messages from IGF' actually had - particular receivers in mind? Namely, folks on the ground trying to do ICT4D. This would be relatively simple to implement, since the 'e-nabler' is theoretically updated/refreshed regularly - say annually. Like when there are fresh 'messages.' So each year's IGF process could have a known target audience, which would help make UN-GAID's grand plan more viable - since if there is not fresh input the thing will grow stale and fall apart quickly I warned them last month. Anyway, the e-nabler is in the early beta stage, but if this doesn't seem entirely crazy as a notion to the folks bridging IGF & GAID - such as Derrick, Marilyn, and a few others could talk it up a little on the gaid side, and - igc can advocate and/or prepare to implement -in its workshops next year - messages to gaid/to planners trying to get things done in challenging circumstances. Of course messages could come in both directions, but seeking to build in feedback loops is generally a good thing right. Anyway, just a thought, which if some of you like - I also volunteer Sala to put into motion : ) Lee ________________________________________ From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 2:57 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a curmudgeon? Dear All, Michael raised a valid point. As a relatively new kid on the block, I think that there should be an information (FAQ) list of URLs to show members how they can involved ie. increased and widened participation. What essentially is the "letter" and "spirit". Criticism must not be taken personally but is a mere tool in refinement and it is a wise man or person who accepts correction (ancient proverb). I love what CS Lewis said in his classic, "An Experiment in Criticism", "My own pair of eyes are not enough for me, let me see through other pairs of eyes." Warm Regards from sunny Fiji, Sala On 10/2/10, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 1 Oct 2010, at 12:06, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> My conclusion is that, far from being curmudgeonly as he warned this >> wasn't his intention, Michael raised a very legitimate and of utmost >> importance question. It probably deserves more serious thinking than what >> it got so far, but obviously only in case democratic participation is an >> issue.. > > > wow, that is loaded language. > > 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 -- Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro P.O.Box 17862 Suva Fiji Islands Cell: +679 9982851 Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj "Wisdom is far better than riches." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Oct 2 06:32:39 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 22:32:39 +1200 Subject: [governance] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a curmudgeon? In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01978B0F06@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <57B7CD8DEA1645DEAEECCBF39E42F448@userPC> <3747F228-0546-460F-BAB2-93CC61EA4AAD@psg.com> <8D61E40B-6DE0-4519-9C30-4017004507B9@marzouki.info> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01978B0F06@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Sala, > > To Avri's point that it is up to folks on the list to make it whatever > they want: thanks for volunteering to prep an IGC FAQ and list of URLs : ) > Lee, I am of course happy to do this but I would need your help in collating the relevant information. Thank you for volunteering to help, Lee, I look forward to developing the list with you. For starters here are some initial basic possible FAQs :- 1) Who is a member of the IGC/IGF? 2)What is the founding document of the IGC/IGF? (What URL can this information be accessed from?) 3)How are the IGC/IGF led and what is the governing authority? 4)What is the vision, mission and objective of the IGC/IGF? 5)Are there Working Groups? 6)Who may be a member? 7)Who may not be a member? 8)What are the checks and balances in place to ensure good governance? 9)What principles does the IGC/IGF subscribe to? 10)How is the world represented in the IGC/IGF? All: You can send me various links (URLs) and I can compile and consolidate into a page and send it back to this mailing list. You can then direct me to sending it to whoever is responsible for uploading onto the website. > > With that 'done' I have been meaning to raise a second point which does > touch on Michael's curmudgeonly critique re the distance between IGC/IGF and > folks on the ground actually trying to do ICT4D, with or without broadband > to acknowledge Jean-Louis' point. > > Here's my 5 cents: > > UN - GAID is working on something they are calling the 'e-Nabler' which > would essentially be an online/semi-automated strategic plan development > tool, intended to help folks - on the ground - trying to plan - ICT > deployments for development. > > Frankly the thing could be a flop/waste of time; or maybe not. It is > intended to provide tools to help folks go from Millenium Development Goals > to specific actionalble implementations, which would be a good thing, if > done right. > > They acknowledge that they are particularly weak on - policy. We IGCers > seem to prefer the word 'governance.' > > So my thought: what if Wolfgang's 'messages from IGF' actually had - > particular receivers in mind? > > Namely, folks on the ground trying to do ICT4D. > > This would be relatively simple to implement, since the 'e-nabler' is > theoretically updated/refreshed regularly - say annually. Like when there > are fresh 'messages.' > > So each year's IGF process could have a known target audience, which would > help make UN-GAID's grand plan more viable - since if there is not fresh > input the thing will grow stale and fall apart quickly I warned them last > month. > > Anyway, the e-nabler is in the early beta stage, but if this doesn't seem > entirely crazy as a notion to the folks bridging IGF & GAID - such as > Derrick, Marilyn, and a few others could talk it up a little on the gaid > side, and - igc can advocate and/or prepare to implement -in its workshops > next year - messages to gaid/to planners trying to get things done in > challenging circumstances. > > Of course messages could come in both directions, but seeking to build in > feedback loops is generally a good thing right. > > Anyway, just a thought, which if some of you like - I also volunteer Sala > to put into motion : ) > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 2:57 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a > curmudgeon? > > Dear All, > > Michael raised a valid point. As a relatively new kid on the block, I > think that there should be an information (FAQ) list of URLs to show > members how they > can involved ie. increased and widened participation. What essentially > is the "letter" and "spirit". Criticism must not be taken personally > but is a mere tool in refinement and it is a wise man or person who > accepts correction (ancient proverb). I love what > CS Lewis said in his classic, "An Experiment in Criticism", "My own > pair of eyes are not enough for me, let me see through other pairs of > eyes." > > Warm Regards from sunny Fiji, > Sala > > > On 10/2/10, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > On 1 Oct 2010, at 12:06, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > > >> My conclusion is that, far from being curmudgeonly as he warned this > >> wasn't his intention, Michael raised a very legitimate and of utmost > >> importance question. It probably deserves more serious thinking than > what > >> it got so far, but obviously only in case democratic participation is an > >> issue.. > > > > > > wow, that is loaded language. > > > > 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 > > > -- > Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro > P.O.Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji Islands > > Cell: +679 9982851 > Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj > > "Wisdom is far better than riches." > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro P.O.Box 17862 Suva Fiji Islands Cell: +679 9982851 Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj "Wisdom is far better than riches." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 2 07:37:02 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 07:07:02 -0430 Subject: [governance] Appreciation and thanks to IGC members Message-ID: <4CA7195E.3070400@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 gpaque at gmail.com Sat Oct 2 08:03:08 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 07:33:08 -0430 Subject: [governance] Note on the 2009 co-coordinator election (membership list and process) Message-ID: <4CA71F7C.1070907@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 glaser at nic.br Sat Oct 2 08:57:08 2010 From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Glaser) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 09:57:08 -0300 Subject: [governance] Appreciation and thanks to IGC members In-Reply-To: <4CA7195E.3070400@gmail.com> References: <4CA7195E.3070400@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4CA72C24.9090103@nic.br> *Congratulations Ginger ...! Your leadership was very appreciated ...!!! ** **All the best, Hartmut* ========================= On 02/10/10 08:37, Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks for the lovely words to me as outgoing co-coordinator. But even > more, thank you for the opportunity to work with all of you as IGC > co-coordinator. I accepted the responsibility with trepidation, but > found it was a very rewarding, constructive learning process. I found > the membership more supportive, and more importantly, more forgiving > than I expected--strong points for our future. A co-coordinator's > success depends on the members' work, and I thank you all for your > ideas, thoughts, patience and support during the last two years. > > Ian was an ideal co-coordinator to learn from and again I thank him > for his patient guidance and example. > > During these two years we have overcome some low points, and matured > during the process. Our future discussions, work, and insistence will > help turn ideas into concrete action both within the IGC (reviewing > membership, charter and voting, etc.) and in the IG/IGF process. > Jeremy's energy and expertise will actively implement those projects, > if timely input builds a consensus on their direction. > > The current discussions bode well for action by the IGC. I also urge > everyone to actively work in the IGC with Jeremy and our new > co-coordinator in improving the IG and IGF processes in the different > fora that are available to us. In particular, I suggest that we move > towards more active and visible support of the work of our members and > their organizations when appropriate. > > Gracias, thank you, merci, > Ginger > -- > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IGCBP Online Coordinator > DiploFoundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > *The latest from Diplo...* > http://DISCUSS.diplomacy.edu is a space for discussing ideas and > concepts from Diplo's teaching and research activities. Our activities > focus on three main areas: Internet governance, diplomacy, and global > governance. In September, we DISCUSS: a) network neutrality: hype and > reality, b) the IGF experience: what can policy makers learn from the > IGF, and c) the history of the Internet. Let us know if you have > suggestions about ideas and concepts that should be discussed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 2 09:30:54 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 09:30:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Appreciation and thanks to IGC members In-Reply-To: <4CA7195E.3070400@gmail.com> References: <4CA7195E.3070400@gmail.com> Message-ID: Ginger, Your leadership, mentorship, fellowship and friendship to and with the members of the IG community as IGC Co-coordinator was exemplary, timely and highly appreciated. May you continue to excel and reap rich rewards in your future endeavours. Words are not enough. Thank you Ginger Paque. Sincerely, Tracy On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks for the lovely words to me as outgoing co-coordinator. But even > more, thank you for the opportunity to work with all of you as IGC > co-coordinator. I accepted the responsibility with trepidation, but found it > was a very rewarding, constructive learning process. I found the > membership more supportive, and more importantly, more forgiving than I > expected--strong points for our future. A co-coordinator's success depends > on the members' work, and I thank you all for your ideas, thoughts, patience > and support during the last two years. > > Ian was an ideal co-coordinator to learn from and again I thank him for his > patient guidance and example. > > During these two years we have overcome some low points, and matured during > the process. Our future discussions, work, and insistence will help turn > ideas into concrete action both within the IGC (reviewing membership, > charter and voting, etc.) and in the IG/IGF process. Jeremy's energy and > expertise will actively implement those projects, if timely input builds a > consensus on their direction. > > The current discussions bode well for action by the IGC. I also urge > everyone to actively work in the IGC with Jeremy and our new co-coordinator > in improving the IG and IGF processes in the different fora that are > available to us. In particular, I suggest that we move towards more active > and visible support of the work of our members and their organizations when > appropriate. > > Gracias, thank you, merci, > Ginger > -- > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IGCBP Online Coordinator > DiploFoundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > *The latest from Diplo...* > http://DISCUSS.diplomacy.edu is a space for discussing ideas and concepts > from Diplo’s teaching and research activities. Our activities focus on three > main areas: Internet governance, diplomacy, and global governance. In > September, we DISCUSS: a) network neutrality: hype and reality, b) the IGF > experience: what can policy makers learn from the IGF, and c) the history of > the Internet. Let us know if you have suggestions about ideas and concepts > that should be discussed. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Sat Oct 2 09:42:40 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 15:42:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] eNabler In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0720B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <57B7CD8DEA1645DEAEECCBF39E42F448@userPC> <3747F228-0546-460F-BAB2-93CC61EA4AAD@psg.com> <8D61E40B-6DE0-4519-9C30-4017004507B9@marzouki.info> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01978B0F06@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0720B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear all, I fully support Wolfgang's vision of an IG Web (I usually call it the Internet Governance Network) linking all stakeholders and their various governance frameworks through a common "governance Protocol" allowing circulation of information upwards and downwards (also sideways of course). The Internet has unified hundreds of thousands of heterogeneous networks through a simple set of protocols (TCP/IP to make it simple) making them interoperable without changing their respective architecture; the HTTP/HTML protocols have allowed millions of heterogeneous databases to become interoperable and form the World Wide Web, irrespective of the kind of software or data structure they are using; likewise, I strongly believe that the interaction modalities that we are experimenting in the IGF (and ICANN) will ultimately allow billions of heterogeneous stakeholders/human groups to interact in a global governance network, without having to change their internal governance framework (every human group has some internal governance framework, ie : modalities for decision-taking). The replication of national and regional IGFs goes in that direction and I expect all international organizations will progressively establish their own MS Forums to interface with the global process. This was emerging slowly during a discussion last week at the OECD around the notion of a Global Forum on Broadband and the Internet Economy. While many actors feared at first that this would come as a competition to the IGF, it was clearly discussed as a way to provide "input" into the annual IGF and a tool to focus OECD activities on what it is concerned most with (the economic dimension). Still work to do but this is where I think it is going. The general challenge is to promote the implementation of multi-stakeholder participatory processes as interoperability standard among heterogeneous governance frameworks. Isn't it what the IGF mandates requests in its paragraph 72i : *Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. * Best Bertrand 2010/10/2 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Lee > > this is the way would should move forward, linking various > initiatives/institutions together in a network sending (political) messages > foreward and backward. Such an "IG Web" would reflect/mirror then > architecture of the Internet and would leave the knowledge/power/decision > making capacity at the "edges" (with the option to enhance knowledge etc. by > other peers). > > On the other hand, by reading the report from the eNabler meeting I was > rather confused. Since UNICTTF I feel here running in a revolving door > missing the exit: Good intentions, (sometimes) big names, big plans, no > money, but rather obscure realities. Anyhow it is always worth to support > good intentions and to enable people to do things which are helping to > implement MDG and WSIS Goals. > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Fra: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sendt: lø 02-10-2010 00:42 > Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; Avri Doria > Emne: RE: [governance] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a > > > > Sala, > > To Avri's point that it is up to folks on the list to make it whatever > they want: thanks for volunteering to prep an IGC FAQ and list of URLs : ) > > With that 'done' I have been meaning to raise a second point which does > touch on Michael's curmudgeonly critique re the distance between IGC/IGF and > folks on the ground actually trying to do ICT4D, with or without broadband > to acknowledge Jean-Louis' point. > > Here's my 5 cents: > > UN - GAID is working on something they are calling the 'e-Nabler' which > would essentially be an online/semi-automated strategic plan development > tool, intended to help folks - on the ground - trying to plan - ICT > deployments for development. > > Frankly the thing could be a flop/waste of time; or maybe not. It is > intended to provide tools to help folks go from Millenium Development Goals > to specific actionalble implementations, which would be a good thing, if > done right. > > They acknowledge that they are particularly weak on - policy. We IGCers > seem to prefer the word 'governance.' > > So my thought: what if Wolfgang's 'messages from IGF' actually had - > particular receivers in mind? > > Namely, folks on the ground trying to do ICT4D. > > This would be relatively simple to implement, since the 'e-nabler' is > theoretically updated/refreshed regularly - say annually. Like when there > are fresh 'messages.' > > So each year's IGF process could have a known target audience, which would > help make UN-GAID's grand plan more viable - since if there is not fresh > input the thing will grow stale and fall apart quickly I warned them last > month. > > Anyway, the e-nabler is in the early beta stage, but if this doesn't seem > entirely crazy as a notion to the folks bridging IGF & GAID - such as > Derrick, Marilyn, and a few others could talk it up a little on the gaid > side, and - igc can advocate and/or prepare to implement -in its workshops > next year - messages to gaid/to planners trying to get things done in > challenging circumstances. > > Of course messages could come in both directions, but seeking to build in > feedback loops is generally a good thing right. > > Anyway, just a thought, which if some of you like - I also volunteer Sala > to put into motion : ) > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 2:57 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a > curmudgeon? > > Dear All, > > Michael raised a valid point. As a relatively new kid on the block, I > think that there should be an information (FAQ) list of URLs to show > members how they > can involved ie. increased and widened participation. What essentially > is the "letter" and "spirit". Criticism must not be taken personally > but is a mere tool in refinement and it is a wise man or person who > accepts correction (ancient proverb). I love what > CS Lewis said in his classic, "An Experiment in Criticism", "My own > pair of eyes are not enough for me, let me see through other pairs of > eyes." > > Warm Regards from sunny Fiji, > Sala > > > On 10/2/10, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > On 1 Oct 2010, at 12:06, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > > >> My conclusion is that, far from being curmudgeonly as he warned this > >> wasn't his intention, Michael raised a very legitimate and of utmost > >> importance question. It probably deserves more serious thinking than > what > >> it got so far, but obviously only in case democratic participation is an > >> issue.. > > > > > > wow, that is loaded language. > > > > 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 > > > -- > Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro > P.O.Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji Islands > > Cell: +679 9982851 > Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj > > "Wisdom is far better than riches." > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 avri at acm.org Sat Oct 2 10:32:18 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 10:32:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] eNabler In-Reply-To: References: <57B7CD8DEA1645DEAEECCBF39E42F448@userPC> <3747F228-0546-460F-BAB2-93CC61EA4AAD@psg.com> <8D61E40B-6DE0-4519-9C30-4017004507B9@marzouki.info> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01978B0F06@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0720B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <85509D62-938F-4EAD-B3F0-51F9B466D2C3@acm.org> Hi, If I understand the current conversation this is one of the very important thing that I believe the IGC has done, consistently promote a model where civil society in its various manifestations has a seat at the table, and in fact even has the opportunity to organize the table and provides an environement where people want to brig others into their causes have a venue to discuss and attract. Is that what we mean by enabler? i sometimes think of the IGC as a little bbit advocacy, a little bit organizer and a lot of clearinghouse and match maker. It is true that in recent years it has focused on the IGF, both the international forum and the many nation and regional efforts. There have been some other efforts undertaken by IGC members in places like ICANN and the OECD, though these have been far smaller and have not involved the IGC in an organizational sense. I personally think it would be good for the IGC to get more drawn into these other organizations organizationally once the individuals have opened the door by their individual efforts - and it is up to the leaders who have broken through in these organizations to bring the rest of us along - if they can. We also have members of this group who are becoming active in the RIR scene like ARIN and RIPE. Perhaps at some point the IGC can offer some support to their efforts, if we care and if they try to recruit us. In terms of the ICT efforts, I have often looked at these, especially from the vantage point as a person who develops (or tries to develop) solutions for ICT4D, and not understood what good they were doing, or what a governance oriented organization could offer to these efforts. The understanding of what governance has to offer to ICT4D is just beginning to grow, and that is due to efforts of members from the IGC, especially people like Bill Drake, who have been trying to bring these issues center stage for a while by organizing meetings and creating opportunities for people to speak. Would be good to see people get behind this. Next week we get the ITU plenipot. We mostly acknowledge that there should be more of an effort to get the ITU to accept a civil society presence/voice, and there even been suggestions of things the IGC could do, like try to become affiliate members, but we have never followed through (i am personally interested in this if anyone else wants to work on it). I wonder how many individuals from the IGC are there on their own this week. I wonder if there is something we can still do remotely to try and have some impact on what happens there. Probably too late but still - statement can always be made in the public sphere and blogs can always be written. At least we have had Wolfgang and others to keep us informed and to work on building our capacity until hopefully someday we learn why and how to involve ourselves. The IGC has grown in both scope and stature partly because of the leadership of our coordinators over the last few years. It is slow, but I believe t is steady. We have seen in the congratulations to Ginger about how much she has done in various areas, e.g. remote participation, to raise the level of participation. This group is first and foremost a catalyst, and I must say, whether through the efforts of individuals who sometimes get support and sometimes don't, or through group actions, it changes the efforts it gets involved in. Yes, it needs to do more and yes we desperately need more active members who take initiatives and bring others, including sometime the whole group together. a. On 2 Oct 2010, at 09:42, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear all, > > I fully support Wolfgang's vision of an IG Web (I usually call it the Internet Governance Network) linking all stakeholders and their various governance frameworks through a common "governance Protocol" allowing circulation of information upwards and downwards (also sideways of course). > > The Internet has unified hundreds of thousands of heterogeneous networks through a simple set of protocols (TCP/IP to make it simple) making them interoperable without changing their respective architecture; the HTTP/HTML protocols have allowed millions of heterogeneous databases to become interoperable and form the World Wide Web, irrespective of the kind of software or data structure they are using; likewise, I strongly believe that the interaction modalities that we are experimenting in the IGF (and ICANN) will ultimately allow billions of heterogeneous stakeholders/human groups to interact in a global governance network, without having to change their internal governance framework (every human group has some internal governance framework, ie : modalities for decision-taking). > > The replication of national and regional IGFs goes in that direction and I expect all international organizations will progressively establish their own MS Forums to interface with the global process. This was emerging slowly during a discussion last week at the OECD around the notion of a Global Forum on Broadband and the Internet Economy. > > While many actors feared at first that this would come as a competition to the IGF, it was clearly discussed as a way to provide "input" into the annual IGF and a tool to focus OECD activities on what it is concerned most with (the economic dimension). Still work to do but this is where I think it is going. > > The general challenge is to promote the implementation of multi-stakeholder participatory processes as interoperability standard among heterogeneous governance frameworks. Isn't it what the IGF mandates requests in its paragraph 72i : Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. > > Best > > Bertrand > > 2010/10/2 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Lee > > this is the way would should move forward, linking various initiatives/institutions together in a network sending (political) messages foreward and backward. Such an "IG Web" would reflect/mirror then architecture of the Internet and would leave the knowledge/power/decision making capacity at the "edges" (with the option to enhance knowledge etc. by other peers). > > On the other hand, by reading the report from the eNabler meeting I was rather confused. Since UNICTTF I feel here running in a revolving door missing the exit: Good intentions, (sometimes) big names, big plans, no money, but rather obscure realities. Anyhow it is always worth to support good intentions and to enable people to do things which are helping to implement MDG and WSIS Goals. > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Fra: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sendt: lø 02-10-2010 00:42 > Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; Avri Doria > Emne: RE: [governance] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a > > > > Sala, > > To Avri's point that it is up to folks on the list to make it whatever they want: thanks for volunteering to prep an IGC FAQ and list of URLs : ) > > With that 'done' I have been meaning to raise a second point which does touch on Michael's curmudgeonly critique re the distance between IGC/IGF and folks on the ground actually trying to do ICT4D, with or without broadband to acknowledge Jean-Louis' point. > > Here's my 5 cents: > > UN - GAID is working on something they are calling the 'e-Nabler' which would essentially be an online/semi-automated strategic plan development tool, intended to help folks - on the ground - trying to plan - ICT deployments for development. > > Frankly the thing could be a flop/waste of time; or maybe not. It is intended to provide tools to help folks go from Millenium Development Goals to specific actionalble implementations, which would be a good thing, if done right. > > They acknowledge that they are particularly weak on - policy. We IGCers seem to prefer the word 'governance.' > > So my thought: what if Wolfgang's 'messages from IGF' actually had - particular receivers in mind? > > Namely, folks on the ground trying to do ICT4D. > > This would be relatively simple to implement, since the 'e-nabler' is theoretically updated/refreshed regularly - say annually. Like when there are fresh 'messages.' > > So each year's IGF process could have a known target audience, which would help make UN-GAID's grand plan more viable - since if there is not fresh input the thing will grow stale and fall apart quickly I warned them last month. > > Anyway, the e-nabler is in the early beta stage, but if this doesn't seem entirely crazy as a notion to the folks bridging IGF & GAID - such as Derrick, Marilyn, and a few others could talk it up a little on the gaid side, and - igc can advocate and/or prepare to implement -in its workshops next year - messages to gaid/to planners trying to get things done in challenging circumstances. > > Of course messages could come in both directions, but seeking to build in feedback loops is generally a good thing right. > > Anyway, just a thought, which if some of you like - I also volunteer Sala to put into motion : ) > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 2:57 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a curmudgeon? > > Dear All, > > Michael raised a valid point. As a relatively new kid on the block, I > think that there should be an information (FAQ) list of URLs to show > members how they > can involved ie. increased and widened participation. What essentially > is the "letter" and "spirit". Criticism must not be taken personally > but is a mere tool in refinement and it is a wise man or person who > accepts correction (ancient proverb). I love what > CS Lewis said in his classic, "An Experiment in Criticism", "My own > pair of eyes are not enough for me, let me see through other pairs of > eyes." > > Warm Regards from sunny Fiji, > Sala > > > On 10/2/10, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > On 1 Oct 2010, at 12:06, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > > >> My conclusion is that, far from being curmudgeonly as he warned this > >> wasn't his intention, Michael raised a very legitimate and of utmost > >> importance question. It probably deserves more serious thinking than what > >> it got so far, but obviously only in case democratic participation is an > >> issue.. > > > > > > wow, that is loaded language. > > > > 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 > > > -- > Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro > P.O.Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji Islands > > Cell: +679 9982851 > Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj > > "Wisdom is far better than riches." > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 2 15:32:58 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 22:32:58 +0300 Subject: [governance] eNabler In-Reply-To: References: <57B7CD8DEA1645DEAEECCBF39E42F448@userPC> <3747F228-0546-460F-BAB2-93CC61EA4AAD@psg.com> <8D61E40B-6DE0-4519-9C30-4017004507B9@marzouki.info> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01978B0F06@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0720B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear all, > > I fully support Wolfgang's vision of an IG Web (I usually call it the > Internet Governance Network) linking all stakeholders and their various > governance frameworks through a common "governance Protocol" allowing > circulation of information upwards and downwards (also sideways of course). sounds like "enhanced cooperation" to me,no? FWIW, this IG Web was started many years ago amongst the folk who do the "narrow IG" 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 kichango at gmail.com Sat Oct 2 15:38:56 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 15:38:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <058685E1D6ED497FA7386407793B7886@userPC> Message-ID: If you have issues with the charter, as you obviously do, have you checked whether the charter offers any ways by which you might get them resolved? If so, why not proceed in that manner? Or do you mean to tell us that that charter is just a bunch of rubbish not deserving of your consideration to operate by its provisions whatsoever, including in order to have it changed? [more below] On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > On 10/1/10, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Is it then an "interpretation" like any other? I don't > > know, I'm not a lawyer. > > I understand you're not a lawyer. Nobody's perfect! And based on that, I'm certainly not trying to be legalistic... and I believe that any group of people has the right to get together and decide the rule they want to live/operate under without a lawyer (by any definition you may accept of such.) > If you were, it would be easier to > explain that a "plain meaning" or "intent" interpretation that > conflicts with other portions of the Charter and also does so in an > undemocratic fashion is not something to be embraced. Such an > interpretation would only be accepted if it were the only possible > interpretation that made sense of the document as a whole - and you > can't just focus on one phrase in isolation. > > Given that you approve of something that takes away my right to vote, > The democratic majority did, and the democratic majority may revert that if and when the motion to do so is on the table, and someone manages to influence or change their understanding of the issues. I would hope that anyone who cares so much about this in the name of democracy, and has --no doubt-- meaningful arguments to support it, will at some point move it before the demos -- the demos which, at some point in the past, took the decision that you now view as "undemocratic." On the other hand, you may also be aware that, in time and space (as opposed to: in the abstract), the brightest ideas don't necessary win in the arena of democracy at a given point in time. Of course the brightest may go around shouting that people are ignorant, wrong and undemocratic! I prefer leaders who accept and respect people's decision, while keeping at their idea of the good and still looking for the next opportunity to explain it better to the people, etc. so as to generate enough consent among them. The demos changes through time and space, confronting new reality and gaining new perspectives. But that's just my plain, commonsense view. I've been only suggesting to you, or anyone interested, to use the resources that the charter afford (would it be correct by lawyer's parlance to call that "due process"?) in order to give the demos the opportunity to reconsider its views. Unfortunately, I have a sense that you may be making this somewhat personal, assuming my own position on the subject matter, while in fact I don't rule out the possibility to vote for an amendment if it comes to that (it is not always just about personal views as it is about where the group is at on some issues at some point in time, about whether there's a sense of shared understanding or consensus, thus it also depends on how the proponents of ideas go about informing others and raising awareness in the group). And I hope someone with your passion will move it and constructively explain to the group why the majority should see things as you do (instead of, say, calling out the demos for being undemocratic on a decision made in good faith, openly and inclusively through the best democratic knowledge and methods practically available to the people at the time). > you'll recognize my restraint in merely saying in response that people > should be more careful when they are not trained in an area and their > actions take away the rights of others. That story of "rights" (and the nature of their origin as well as the prerequisites of their very existence as enforceable claims) can lead to headaches I'm not kin on having right now. I defer to the past couple of centuries of philosophical debates on the issue. I'm sure if any one side had had the very last word on that, we would have known. Thanks, and I look forward to considering your (directly or indirectly) motion on charter amendment regarding membership rule and voting. Until then for my part, I rest the case. Mawaki > This is a "governance" list > and I hadn't heard the intent was to model ways in which to exclude > others from the most important decisions, such as Constitutions or > charters. > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-2334 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sat Oct 2 17:32:28 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 17:32:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <058685E1D6ED497FA7386407793B7886@userPC> Message-ID: On 10/2/10, Mawaki Chango wrote: Or do you mean to tell us that that > charter is just a bunch of rubbish not deserving of your consideration to > operate by its provisions whatsoever, including in order to have it changed? No, some people on this list will recall I paid a significant amount of attention to it a few months ago, in addition to recently. I studied the charter carefully, and wrote what I thought made sense of the whole thing, (instead of reading parts in isolation). I think I made enough observations along the way to justify the proposal that was then made: to set up a committee. At minimum, reasonable people can interpret the charter provision differently, but that doesn't make all interpretations of equal merit. In addition, it is mistaken to think that a vote of a group constitutes a "precedent" in anything like the sense most people are familiar with for judicial precedent. There has been no due process and full hearing of the issues before the past votes or whatever other action is being claimed as "precedent." I don't believe any one should be forced to have a lawyer on their side, but that doesn't mean that "anything goes" because the simple act of not having a lawyer, or having a vote among a group of people, doesn't grant an exemption from the rules of reason that govern interpretation of texts. For example, one rule I invoked implicitly was: (1) No text may be said to incorporate a "rule" unless all of what the text says concerning the subject of that rule is consistent with the proposed meaning of the "rule" or otherwise fully accounted for. >> On 10/1/10, Mawaki Chango wrote: > I would hope that > anyone who cares so much about this in the name of democracy, and has --no > doubt-- meaningful arguments to support it, will at some point move it > before the demos -- the demos which, at some point in the past, took the > decision that you now view as "undemocratic." Well, for a charter amendment, a non-qualified peon like me who can't even vote on a charter amendment surely can't move the adoption of such an amendment, can I? Or, if it is like when women couldn't vote, in some places they could hold office even though not allowed to vote since they were deemed to be "virtually" represented by their male husbands and brothers and fathers. Under that view, perhaps I could make a motion without being able to vote but it would be a risk. I wonder if this group understands that the use of the word "Demos" (people) doesn't include me (and anyone else who didn't vote last time) for purposes of Charter amendments? When there are two or more classes of voters and/or if there is not universal suffrage, it is not a "demos" democracy -- it is an aristocracy or an oligarchy or the like. > On the other hand, you may also be aware that, in time and space (as opposed > to: in the abstract), the brightest ideas don't necessary win in the arena > of democracy at a given point in time. And it takes experts, preferably many of them, to truly foul things up. If a demos or people can't make mistakes, they are NOT free. > suggesting to you, or anyone interested, to use the resources that the > charter afford (would it be correct by lawyer's parlance to call that "due > process"?) in order to give the demos the opportunity to reconsider its > views. That would be an excellent proposal if the subject matter didn't involve voting. Since it does that makes me and others outsiders, literally not part of the "people" here, and not fully qualified to address the charter. Whenever the right to vote is at question, it is agitated for from some sort of "outside" - that's where the non-voters / new members are. The perennial consideration for not allowing other people to vote is that it will flood the system with votes and dilute the votes of the pre-existing voters. It might be called "gaming" but since every vote is equal this charge reflects the feeling of members whose votes get diluted but not any real injustice. One can democratically have a short waiting period after list membership starts in order to vote "a residency requirement" but after that there should not be different or separate classes of voters -- if it is a democracy that we mean to have. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 2 20:46:20 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 08:46:20 +0800 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <058685E1D6ED497FA7386407793B7886@userPC> Message-ID: <31ADD95A-E5B5-4169-BC8A-A774E077EB4E@ciroap.org> On 03/10/2010, at 5:32 AM, Paul Lehto wrote: > No, some people on this list will recall I paid a significant amount > of attention to it a few months ago, in addition to recently. I > studied the charter carefully, and wrote what I thought made sense of > the whole thing, (instead of reading parts in isolation). I think I > made enough observations along the way to justify the proposal that > was then made: to set up a committee. You weren't at the IGC meeting in Vilnius, but at that meeting Ginger and I asked whether there was interest in forming a committee to review the Charter, and no interest was forthcoming. However, maybe things have changed now. If anyone is interested in participating in a committee to review the charter, please speak up now. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Oct 2 21:54:57 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 04:54:57 +0300 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <058685E1D6ED497FA7386407793B7886@userPC> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Paul Lehto wrote: > > Well, for a charter amendment, a non-qualified peon like me who can't > even vote on a charter amendment surely can't move the adoption of > such an amendment, can I? Yes, you can? > > I wonder if this group understands that the use of the word "Demos" > (people) doesn't include me (and anyone else who didn't vote last > time) for purposes of Charter amendments? Everyone who subscribes to the charter should understand this. Were you not given a voter account? You have been on the list longer than 2 months. If you didn't use said account, you can't blame us, can you? > >> On the other hand, you may also be aware that, in time and space (as opposed >> to: in the abstract), the brightest ideas don't necessary win in the arena >> of democracy at a given point in time. > > And it takes experts, preferably many of them, to truly foul things > up.   If a demos or people can't make mistakes, they are NOT free. > >> suggesting to you, or anyone interested, to use the resources that the >> charter afford (would it be correct by lawyer's parlance to call that "due >> process"?) in order to give the demos the opportunity to reconsider its >> views. > > That would be an excellent proposal if the subject matter didn't > involve voting.  Since it does that makes me and others outsiders, > literally not part of the "people" here, and not fully qualified to > address the charter. > > Whenever the right to vote is at question, it is agitated for from > some sort of "outside" - that's where the non-voters / new members > are. > > The perennial consideration for not allowing other people to vote is > that it will flood the system with votes and dilute the votes of the > pre-existing voters.  It might be called "gaming" but since every vote > is equal this charge reflects the feeling of members whose votes get > diluted but not any real injustice.  One can democratically have a > short waiting period after list membership starts in order to vote "a > residency requirement" but after that there should not be different or > separate classes of voters -- if it is a democracy that we mean to > have. I await your charter amendment on this issue. -- 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 Sat Oct 2 22:28:10 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 22:28:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <058685E1D6ED497FA7386407793B7886@userPC> Message-ID: In the past, I was invited by a coordinator to read the charter with an eye toward possible improvement, and I did so, carefully. There are always multiple ways any given text can be interpreted. That ambiguity can be narrowed through good drafting but not eliminated entirely, especially as against readers that potentially have motivation to interpret it in certain ways they favor for reasons outside the text. But in my opinion, the Charter doesn't absolutely need a substantive amendment at all, at least if it is understood in its entirety in the spirit I read it, such as by not favoring an interpretation that results in a loss of rights unless that is the only reasonable interpretation. . Thus, one presumes democracy and equality of voting unless it is crystal clear that no other reasonable interpretation exists. That being said, the Charter could stand having some less than optimal drafting ambiguities cleared up. I do understand that, as with all texts, it is subject to multiple interpretations, plus a few more still if there are any real elections or disputes at issue. Whenever multiple reasonable interpretations exist about the same text, it is ambiguous. I"m not inclined to propose a substantive amendment because that would presume the EXACT thing I deny: that my interpretation is wrong and others' is right. That would give me the burden of a campaign to amend the charter plus concede essentially all the points I've made so far. Am I stupid? Like most people, I do not believe so. ;) Always, after an election, every side cheers for their team and each side conveniently agrees or disagrees with the calls of the referee. The best hope is to wait a bit of time for the election mood to pass and then hope that the spirit of democracy and equality carries the day. Paul Lehto, J.D. P.S. Ultimately, it is only this "nebulous" idea of the spirit that keeps the life and intent in any text or words. To see what I mean, read the Constitution of the soviet union which seems very well drafted indeed, I'd say better than the USA's, but it doesn't seem to have been followed much. And now the USA Constitution has seen better days as the eagerness to punish overwhelms the spirit of liberty. On 10/2/10, McTim wrote: > On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Paul Lehto wrote: > > >> >> Well, for a charter amendment, a non-qualified peon like me who can't >> even vote on a charter amendment surely can't move the adoption of >> such an amendment, can I? > > Yes, you can? > >> >> I wonder if this group understands that the use of the word "Demos" >> (people) doesn't include me (and anyone else who didn't vote last >> time) for purposes of Charter amendments? > > Everyone who subscribes to the charter should understand this. > > Were you not given a voter account? You have been on the list longer > than 2 months. If you didn't use said account, you can't blame us, > can you? > > >> >>> On the other hand, you may also be aware that, in time and space (as >>> opposed >>> to: in the abstract), the brightest ideas don't necessary win in the >>> arena >>> of democracy at a given point in time. >> >> And it takes experts, preferably many of them, to truly foul things >> up. If a demos or people can't make mistakes, they are NOT free. >> >>> suggesting to you, or anyone interested, to use the resources that the >>> charter afford (would it be correct by lawyer's parlance to call that >>> "due >>> process"?) in order to give the demos the opportunity to reconsider its >>> views. >> >> That would be an excellent proposal if the subject matter didn't >> involve voting. Since it does that makes me and others outsiders, >> literally not part of the "people" here, and not fully qualified to >> address the charter. >> >> Whenever the right to vote is at question, it is agitated for from >> some sort of "outside" - that's where the non-voters / new members >> are. >> >> The perennial consideration for not allowing other people to vote is >> that it will flood the system with votes and dilute the votes of the >> pre-existing voters. It might be called "gaming" but since every vote >> is equal this charge reflects the feeling of members whose votes get >> diluted but not any real injustice. One can democratically have a >> short waiting period after list membership starts in order to vote "a >> residency requirement" but after that there should not be different or >> separate classes of voters -- if it is a democracy that we mean to >> have. > > I await your charter amendment on this issue. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Oct 3 05:48:38 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 11:48:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] eNabler In-Reply-To: References: <57B7CD8DEA1645DEAEECCBF39E42F448@userPC> <3747F228-0546-460F-BAB2-93CC61EA4AAD@psg.com> <8D61E40B-6DE0-4519-9C30-4017004507B9@marzouki.info> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01978B0F06@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0720B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi McTim, Quite so. On both counts : this is (or should be) one key element of "enhanced cooperation" and yes, the model has already started somehow in the "narrow IG" space. B. On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 9:32 PM, McTim wrote: > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle > wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > I fully support Wolfgang's vision of an IG Web (I usually call it the > > Internet Governance Network) linking all stakeholders and their various > > governance frameworks through a common "governance Protocol" allowing > > circulation of information upwards and downwards (also sideways of > course). > > sounds like "enhanced cooperation" to me,no? > > FWIW, this IG Web was started many years ago amongst the folk who do > the "narrow IG" work. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > -- ____________________ 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 avri at acm.org Sun Oct 3 06:35:06 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 06:35:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] ARIN and remote participation References: <20101002121420.767C216514E@smtp1.arin.net> Message-ID: <1D4FC13E-4486-44A0-B615-146C537AEBEE@acm.org> hi, Just want to make sure people knew that ARIN, the RIR for North America, has arranged for remote participation. Begin forwarded message: > Thank you for registering for the ARIN XXVI Public Policy and Members > Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia from 6 - 8 October 2010. > > General information about the meeting is available at: > > https://www.arin.net/ARIN-XXVI/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Oct 3 06:40:48 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 06:40:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] ARIN and remote participation In-Reply-To: <1D4FC13E-4486-44A0-B615-146C537AEBEE@acm.org> References: <20101002121420.767C216514E@smtp1.arin.net> <1D4FC13E-4486-44A0-B615-146C537AEBEE@acm.org> Message-ID: ps. wish there was info like this I could forward on the ITU: Plenipotentiary Conference 2010 4-22 October. a. On 3 Oct 2010, at 06:35, Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > Just want to make sure people knew that ARIN, the RIR for North America, has arranged for remote participation. > > Begin forwarded message: > >> Thank you for registering for the ARIN XXVI Public Policy and Members >> Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia from 6 - 8 October 2010. >> >> General information about the meeting is available at: >> >> https://www.arin.net/ARIN-XXVI/ > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Oct 3 14:20:25 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 15:20:25 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] Appreciation and thanks to IGC members In-Reply-To: <4CA7195E.3070400@gmail.com> References: <4CA7195E.3070400@gmail.com> Message-ID: <008401cb6327$ab005070$0100f150$@uol.com.br> Hope we keep in touch.. All the best Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464 De: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Enviada em: sábado, 2 de outubro de 2010 08:37 Para: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Assunto: [governance] Appreciation and thanks to IGC members Thanks for the lovely words to me as outgoing co-coordinator. But even more, thank you for the opportunity to work with all of you as IGC co-coordinator. I accepted the responsibility with trepidation, but found it was a very rewarding, constructive learning process. I found the membership more supportive, and more importantly, more forgiving than I expected--strong points for our future. A co-coordinator's success depends on the members' work, and I thank you all for your ideas, thoughts, patience and support during the last two years. Ian was an ideal co-coordinator to learn from and again I thank him for his patient guidance and example. During these two years we have overcome some low points, and matured during the process. Our future discussions, work, and insistence will help turn ideas into concrete action both within the IGC (reviewing membership, charter and voting, etc.) and in the IG/IGF process. Jeremy's energy and expertise will actively implement those projects, if timely input builds a consensus on their direction. The current discussions bode well for action by the IGC. I also urge everyone to actively work in the IGC with Jeremy and our new co-coordinator in improving the IG and IGF processes in the different fora that are available to us. In particular, I suggest that we move towards more active and visible support of the work of our members and their organizations when appropriate. Gracias, thank you, merci, Ginger -- Ginger (Virginia) Paque IGCBP Online Coordinator DiploFoundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig The latest from Diplo... http://DISCUSS.diplomacy.edu is a space for discussing ideas and concepts from Diplo’s teaching and research activities. Our activities focus on three main areas: Internet governance, diplomacy, and global governance. In September, we DISCUSS: a) network neutrality: hype and reality, b) the IGF experience: what can policy makers learn from the IGF, and c) the history of the Internet. Let us know if you have suggestions about ideas and concepts that should be discussed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From charityg at diplomacy.edu Sun Oct 3 16:39:48 2010 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 15:39:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] ARIN and remote participation In-Reply-To: References: <20101002121420.767C216514E@smtp1.arin.net> <1D4FC13E-4486-44A0-B615-146C537AEBEE@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Avri and all, I will be attending the ARIN XXVI and NANOG meeting this coming 6th to 8th in Atlanta. Yes, I do want to re-iterate what Avri mentioned that there is remote participation. ARIN is offering Jabber chat for registered remote attendees. Also, they sent info that those who registered before September 21st are eligible to vote for a regional rep on NRO NC (Number Resource Organization Number Council). The voting has started last week - I think the 29th as there was some delay, and will close on the 6th. Below is the link for more info on RP services: https://www.arin.net/ARIN-XXVI/remote.html Based on the info that was sent to the ARIN mailing list , remote participants who had pre-registered their Jabber Identifiers can have access to the restricted chat rooms. I think you can register anytime but those who did not pre-register their Jabber ID can only be added during the meeting breaks. This is the agenda: https://www.arin.net/ARIN-XXVI/agenda.html Below is the ARIN election headquarters: https://www.arin.net/app/election/ Hope to see some IGC members there. Regards, Charity Gamboa-Embley On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 5:40 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > ps. wish there was info like this I could forward on the ITU: > Plenipotentiary Conference 2010 4-22 October. > > > a. > > On 3 Oct 2010, at 06:35, Avri Doria wrote: > > > hi, > > > > Just want to make sure people knew that ARIN, the RIR for North America, > has arranged for remote participation. > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > >> Thank you for registering for the ARIN XXVI Public Policy and Members > >> Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia from 6 - 8 October 2010. > >> > >> General information about the meeting is available at: > >> > >> https://www.arin.net/ARIN-XXVI/ > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Sun Oct 3 19:50:59 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 19:20:59 -0430 Subject: [governance] Extending the footprint of IG/IGF Message-ID: <4CA916E3.4060700@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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Oct 3 20:11:23 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 12:11:23 +1200 Subject: [governance] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a curmudgeon? In-Reply-To: References: <57B7CD8DEA1645DEAEECCBF39E42F448@userPC> <3747F228-0546-460F-BAB2-93CC61EA4AAD@psg.com> <8D61E40B-6DE0-4519-9C30-4017004507B9@marzouki.info> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01978B0F06@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear Lee, and IGC/IGF, Greetings! If within 7 days, no one volunteers to help me with these answers then I will consider it closed and withdraw my "volunteering to help with the FAQs and URLs". I will assume that there is "disinterest" in the idea. Warm Regards, Sala On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> Sala, >> >> To Avri's point that it is up to folks on the list to make it whatever >> they want: thanks for volunteering to prep an IGC FAQ and list of URLs : ) >> > > Lee, I am of course happy to do this but I would need your help in > collating the relevant information. Thank you for volunteering to help, Lee, > I look forward to developing the list with you. For starters here are some > initial basic possible FAQs :- > > 1) Who is a member of the IGC/IGF? > 2)What is the founding document of the IGC/IGF? (What URL can this > information be accessed from?) > 3)How are the IGC/IGF led and what is the governing authority? > 4)What is the vision, mission and objective of the IGC/IGF? > 5)Are there Working Groups? > 6)Who may be a member? > 7)Who may not be a member? > 8)What are the checks and balances in place to ensure good governance? > 9)What principles does the IGC/IGF subscribe to? > 10)How is the world represented in the IGC/IGF? > > All: You can send me various links (URLs) and I can compile and consolidate > into a page and send it back to this mailing list. You can then direct me to > sending it to whoever is responsible for uploading onto the website. > > >> >> With that 'done' I have been meaning to raise a second point which does >> touch on Michael's curmudgeonly critique re the distance between IGC/IGF and >> folks on the ground actually trying to do ICT4D, with or without broadband >> to acknowledge Jean-Louis' point. >> >> Here's my 5 cents: >> >> UN - GAID is working on something they are calling the 'e-Nabler' which >> would essentially be an online/semi-automated strategic plan development >> tool, intended to help folks - on the ground - trying to plan - ICT >> deployments for development. >> >> Frankly the thing could be a flop/waste of time; or maybe not. It is >> intended to provide tools to help folks go from Millenium Development Goals >> to specific actionalble implementations, which would be a good thing, if >> done right. >> >> They acknowledge that they are particularly weak on - policy. We IGCers >> seem to prefer the word 'governance.' >> >> So my thought: what if Wolfgang's 'messages from IGF' actually had - >> particular receivers in mind? >> >> Namely, folks on the ground trying to do ICT4D. >> >> This would be relatively simple to implement, since the 'e-nabler' is >> theoretically updated/refreshed regularly - say annually. Like when there >> are fresh 'messages.' >> >> So each year's IGF process could have a known target audience, which would >> help make UN-GAID's grand plan more viable - since if there is not fresh >> input the thing will grow stale and fall apart quickly I warned them last >> month. >> >> Anyway, the e-nabler is in the early beta stage, but if this doesn't seem >> entirely crazy as a notion to the folks bridging IGF & GAID - such as >> Derrick, Marilyn, and a few others could talk it up a little on the gaid >> side, and - igc can advocate and/or prepare to implement -in its workshops >> next year - messages to gaid/to planners trying to get things done in >> challenging circumstances. >> >> Of course messages could come in both directions, but seeking to build in >> feedback loops is generally a good thing right. >> >> Anyway, just a thought, which if some of you like - I also volunteer Sala >> to put into motion : ) >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com >> ] >> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 2:57 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a >> curmudgeon? >> >> Dear All, >> >> Michael raised a valid point. As a relatively new kid on the block, I >> think that there should be an information (FAQ) list of URLs to show >> members how they >> can involved ie. increased and widened participation. What essentially >> is the "letter" and "spirit". Criticism must not be taken personally >> but is a mere tool in refinement and it is a wise man or person who >> accepts correction (ancient proverb). I love what >> CS Lewis said in his classic, "An Experiment in Criticism", "My own >> pair of eyes are not enough for me, let me see through other pairs of >> eyes." >> >> Warm Regards from sunny Fiji, >> Sala >> >> >> On 10/2/10, Avri Doria wrote: >> > >> > On 1 Oct 2010, at 12:06, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> > >> >> My conclusion is that, far from being curmudgeonly as he warned this >> >> wasn't his intention, Michael raised a very legitimate and of utmost >> >> importance question. It probably deserves more serious thinking than >> what >> >> it got so far, but obviously only in case democratic participation is >> an >> >> issue.. >> > >> > >> > wow, that is loaded language. >> > >> > 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 >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro >> P.O.Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji Islands >> >> Cell: +679 9982851 >> Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj >> >> "Wisdom is far better than riches." >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro > P.O.Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji Islands > > Cell: +679 9982851 > Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj > > "Wisdom is far better than riches." > -- Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro P.O.Box 17862 Suva Fiji Islands Cell: +679 9982851 Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj "Wisdom is far better than riches." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Oct 4 00:51:59 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 07:51:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] ARIN and remote participation In-Reply-To: References: <20101002121420.767C216514E@smtp1.arin.net> <1D4FC13E-4486-44A0-B615-146C537AEBEE@acm.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Charity Gamboa wrote: > Hi Avri and all, > > I will be attending the ARIN XXVI and NANOG meeting this coming 6th to 8th > in Atlanta.  Yes, I do want to re-iterate what Avri mentioned that there is > remote participation. ARIN is offering Jabber chat for registered remote > attendees. plus webcast plus transcript plus archived presentations plus social networking. Sounds like more building blocks of "enhanced coperation" to me.   Also, they sent info that those who registered before September > 21st are eligible to vote for a regional rep on NRO NC (Number Resource > Organization Number Council). Now that is truly groundbreaking, more "EC"? I note that you are one of the ARIN Fellows this year, congratulations, more "EC"! (or "Continuing Cooperation" as the NRO puts it at: http://www.nro.net/news/continuing-cooperation.html https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/fellowship.html -- 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 Mon Oct 4 01:40:58 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 14:40:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC profile: some handfuls of people and a In-Reply-To: References: <57B7CD8DEA1645DEAEECCBF39E42F448@userPC> <3747F228-0546-460F-BAB2-93CC61EA4AAD@psg.com> <8D61E40B-6DE0-4519-9C30-4017004507B9@marzouki.info> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01978B0F06@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Sala, Hi. Have you had a look through the IGC website? I think a few of your questions are answered there Putting that information into a single FAQ would be very helpful. Best, Adam At 12:11 PM +1200 10/4/10, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >Dear Lee, and IGC/IGF, > >Greetings! If within 7 days, no one volunteers >to help me with these answers then I will >consider it closed and withdraw my "volunteering >to help with the FAQs and URLs". > >I will assume that there is "disinterest" in the idea. > >Warm Regards, > >Sala > >On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Salanieta T. >Tamanikaiwaimaro ><salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> >wrote: > > > > >On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Lee W McKnight ><lmcknigh at syr.edu> >wrote: > >Sala, > >To Avri's point that it is up to folks on the >list to  make it whatever they want: thanks for >volunteering to prep an IGC FAQ and list of URLs >: ) > > >Lee, I am of course happy to do this but I would >need your help in collating the relevant >information. Thank you for volunteering to help, >Lee, I look forward to developing the list with >you. For starters here are some initial basic >possible FAQs :- > >1) Who is a member of the IGC/IGF? >2)What is the founding document of the IGC/IGF? >(What URL can this information be accessed from?) >3)How are the IGC/IGF led and what is the governing authority? >4)What is the vision, mission and objective of the IGC/IGF? >5)Are there Working Groups? >6)Who may be a member? >7)Who may not be a member? >8)What are the checks and balances in place to ensure good governance? >9)What principles does the IGC/IGF subscribe to? >10)How is the world represented in the IGC/IGF? > >All: You can send me various links (URLs) and I >can compile and consolidate into a page and send >it back to this mailing list. You can then >direct me to sending it to whoever is >responsible for uploading onto the website. > > > >With that 'done' I have been meaning to raise a >second point which does touch on Michael's >curmudgeonly critique re the distance between >IGC/IGF and folks on the ground actually trying >to do ICT4D, with or without broadband to >acknowledge Jean-Louis' point. > >Here's my 5 cents: > >UN - GAID is working on something they are >calling the 'e-Nabler' which would essentially >be an online/semi-automated strategic plan >development tool, intended to help folks - on >the ground - trying to plan - ICT deployments >for development. > >Frankly the thing could be a flop/waste of time; >or maybe not. It is intended to provide tools to >help folks go from Millenium Development Goals >to specific actionalble implementations, which >would be a good thing, if done right. > >They acknowledge that they are particularly weak >on - policy. We IGCers seem to prefer the word >'governance.' > >So my thought: what if Wolfgang's 'messages from >IGF' actually had - particular receivers in mind? > >Namely, folks on the ground trying to do ICT4D. > >This would be relatively simple to implement, >since the 'e-nabler' is theoretically >updated/refreshed regularly - say annually. > Like when there are fresh 'messages.' > >So each year's IGF process could have a known >target audience, which would help make UN-GAID's >grand plan more viable - since if there is not >fresh input the thing will grow stale and fall >apart quickly I warned them last month. > >Anyway, the e-nabler is in the early beta stage, >but if this doesn't seem entirely crazy as a >notion to the folks bridging IGF & GAID - such >as Derrick, Marilyn, and a few others could talk >it up a little on the gaid side, and - igc can >advocate and/or prepare to implement -in its >workshops next year - messages to gaid/to >planners trying to get things done in >challenging circumstances. > >Of course messages could come in both >directions, but seeking to build in feedback >loops is generally a good thing right. > >Anyway, just a thought, which if some of you >like - I also volunteer Sala to put into motion >: ) > >Lee >________________________________________ >From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >[salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] >Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 2:57 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria >Subject: Re: [governance] IGC profile: some >handfuls of people and a curmudgeon? > > >Dear All, > >Michael raised a valid point. As a relatively new kid on the block, I >think that there should be an information (FAQ) list of URLs to show >members how they >can involved ie. increased and widened participation. What essentially >is the "letter" and "spirit". Criticism must not be taken personally >but is a mere tool in refinement and it is a wise man or person who >accepts correction (ancient proverb). I love what >CS Lewis said in his classic, "An Experiment in Criticism", "My own >pair of eyes are not enough for me, let me see through other pairs of >eyes." > >Warm Regards from sunny Fiji, >Sala > > >On 10/2/10, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote: >> >> On 1 Oct 2010, at 12:06, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> >>> My conclusion is that, far from being curmudgeonly as he warned this >>> wasn't his intention, Michael raised a very legitimate and of utmost >>> importance question. It probably deserves more serious thinking than what >>> it got so far, but obviously only in case democratic participation is an >>> issue.. >> >> >> wow, that is loaded language. >> >> 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 > > >-- >Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro >P.O.Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji Islands > >Cell: +679 9982851 >Alternate Email: >s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj > >"Wisdom is far better than riches." >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > >http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: >http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > >-- > >Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro >P.O.Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji Islands > >Cell: +679 9982851 >Alternate Email: >s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj > >"Wisdom is far better than riches." > > > > >-- >Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro >P.O.Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji Islands > >Cell: +679 9982851 >Alternate Email: >s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj > >"Wisdom is far better than riches." > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Oct 4 05:07:17 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 10:07:17 +0100 Subject: SV: [governance] IGF Consultation meeting Nov 22-23, Geneva announced In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07208@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <00b501cb6174$8694cb30$93be6190$@uol.com.br> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07208@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: In message <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07208 at server1.medienkomm.un i-halle.de>, at 17:06:06 on Fri, 1 Oct 2010, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" writes >Does somebody know whether there is a meeting of the UNCSTD on November >24 to discuss "improvement"`? The following week probably[1], although the UNCTAD crowd are also in town from 22-26th, working on "Strategic Framework and Budget". [1] -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From qshatti at gmail.com Mon Oct 4 08:18:44 2010 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 15:18:44 +0300 Subject: [governance] Appreciation and thanks to IGC members In-Reply-To: <4CA7195E.3070400@gmail.com> References: <4CA7195E.3070400@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Ginger: Thank you for all the effort you made during your time as a coordinator for the IGC. Your skills, commitment and wonderful personlaity helped the IGC members to interact effectively especially when a consent is needed. The honor is really our's to have you as a coordinator for the IGC. Regards, Qusai Al-Shatti On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks for the lovely words to me as outgoing co-coordinator. But even more, > thank you for the opportunity to work with all of you as IGC co-coordinator. > I accepted the responsibility with trepidation, but found it was a very > rewarding, constructive learning process. I found the membership more > supportive, and more importantly, more forgiving than I expected--strong > points for our future. A co-coordinator's success depends on the members' > work, and I thank you all for your ideas, thoughts, patience and support > during the last two years. > > Ian was an ideal co-coordinator to learn from and again I thank him for his > patient guidance and example. > > During these two years we have overcome some low points, and matured during > the process. Our future discussions, work, and insistence will help turn > ideas into concrete action both within the IGC (reviewing membership, > charter and voting, etc.) and in the IG/IGF process. Jeremy's energy and > expertise will actively implement those projects, if timely input builds a > consensus on their direction. > > The current discussions bode well for action by the IGC. I also urge > everyone to actively work in the IGC with Jeremy and our new co-coordinator > in improving the IG and IGF processes in the different fora that are > available to us. In particular, I suggest that we move towards more active > and visible support of the work of our members and their organizations when > appropriate. > > Gracias, thank you, merci, > Ginger > -- > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IGCBP Online Coordinator > DiploFoundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > The latest from Diplo... > http://DISCUSS.diplomacy.edu is a space for discussing ideas and concepts > from Diplo’s teaching and research activities. Our activities focus on three > main areas: Internet governance, diplomacy, and global governance. In > September, we DISCUSS: a) network neutrality: hype and reality, b) the IGF > experience: what can policy makers learn from the IGF, and c) the history of > the Internet. Let us know if you have suggestions about ideas and concepts > that should be discussed. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Oct 4 09:59:42 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 09:59:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <058685E1D6ED497FA7386407793B7886@userPC> Message-ID: It seems to me that "democracies" begin with an agreement or a charter or a constitution which is exclusive in that it defines the "demos" - the one man that gets the one vote - and excludes everyone else. The nature of "us" and "them" changes over time but there is always a "them" who are excluded. The IGC, having a charter, has defined its rules for voting, and until such time as those rules are changed it seems logical that it should obey its own rules. My own feeling is that the agreement or charter or constitution needs to be treated with great care to make it light enough to allow for freedom of movement. Armour is counterproductive when it becomes so heavy that you cannot lift your arm to defend yourself. And the armour cannot be sufficiently heavy to completely obviate the need for self-defense unless it rules out individual freedoms completely. The model that I can imagine is beginning to emerge in governance, Internet and otherwise, is a model of governance by negotiation and collaboration rather than by stipulation. The emerging democracy would then need no agreement or charter or constitution because it would be inclusive and therefore truly democratic. Might take a long time ... but a dream worth dreaming? Deirdre Paul Lehto, J.D. > > P.S. Ultimately, it is only this "nebulous" idea of the spirit that > keeps the life and intent in any text or words. To see what I mean, > read the Constitution of the soviet union which seems very well > drafted indeed, I'd say better than the USA's, but it doesn't seem to > have been followed much. And now the USA Constitution has seen better > days as the eagerness to punish overwhelms the spirit of liberty. > > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Oct 4 11:12:03 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 23:12:03 +0800 Subject: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire Message-ID: <1C3E37FA-8E30-43E4-9A95-27DD595A056F@ciroap.org> I apologise for my delay in getting this together. This is a draft statement in response to the MAG's questionnaire (at http://intgovforum.org/cms/the-preparatory-process/510) on improvements to the MAG and other IGF preparatory processes. This statement is based, where possible, on the responses to the individual questions that were discussed on this list between 8 June and 2 July. You will notice a few quotes taken near-verbatim from posts to the list. However, discussion tailed off after the first few questions, so a lot of what appears below is my "feeling" of an IGC response that could meet with a rough consensus, based on observation of the list over the last year (and, inevitably, personal perspectives). Consider this as a renewed invitation to comment now. Because of the limited actual input into some of the questions so far, I've kept those answers fairly brief. Please provide your detailed comments for changes and improvements. We have until 24 October to finalise this. 1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions? The IGC broadly supports the continuation of the MAG in its present form, as a multi-stakeholder programme committee for the IGF. In this limited role, the MAG has performed fairly well. However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads where it may be called upon to produce more tangible outputs. The qualification of the MAG to steer the IGF through this challenging phase of its evolution is less clear. In the past, the MAG has been unwilling to depart too radically from the format of the IGF that was established in Athens. Ideas such as speed dialogues, debates, roundtables and messages from the IGF, although strongly supported in some quarters, have each year failed to progress within the MAG due to a lack of consensus, which has been interpreted as requiring unanimity. Whilst the desire not to mess with a process that is working is laudable, a lack of consensus cannot be used to justify inertia, where the IGF's mandate calls for action. To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era for the IGF may require more proactive leadership, utilising a more flexible conception of "rough consensus" to break through stalemates and propel the IGF towards the complete fulfilment of its mandate. Reducing the size of the MAG might also improve its effectiveness. Moreover, the MAG does not always interact well with the public forum of its own design - the IGF. MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for multistakeholder comment and participation, in a variety of other institutions, processes and fora, both online and offline. Opening up meetings of the MAG to observers, either face to face or remotely, could also assist in making it more accessible and responsive to the broader community. 2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG? As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary for it to become more accountable. Part of this process may involve moving on from the existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary General selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by various parties, pursuant to selection criteria that are not published. An alternative approach that many from civil society support is the selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process driven by the stakeholder groups. WIth its existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes, the Internet Governance Caucus could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society MAG representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints. Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special privileges that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, and special advisors to the chair, currently possess. If the MAG's processes are opened to broader oversight by the community, such special privileges would soon become redundant. 3. How best to nominate the MAG Chair? At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN Secretary-General. This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG develops into a body whose members are self-selected by the stakeholders. In that case, it could be that the MAG should select its own chair or chairs, and for that position to rotate between the stakeholder groups. In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the role of the Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder agenda, but to facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de facto multi-stakeholder bureau for the IGF that is responsible for facilitating the fulfilment of the mandate in the Tunis Agenda. 4. How best to organize open consultations? There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as meetings held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation from around the world, but as meetings that are held online, with provision for some participants to attend in person at a hub in Geneva, or at other hubs. Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves could come to be considered in the same terms. Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously (ie. through comments and discussions that are contributed over an extended period through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on). It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise an electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF participants as means of contributing to open consultations. In particular, MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity to online discussions outside of their closed mailing list, which limits the profile and accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a whole. 5. How best to link with regional meetings? The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance to a much broader community of Internet users and citizens, but at the same time we must be careful to ensure that these meetings meet the same basic process criteria as the IGF itself, including adequate participation by civil society at all levels. In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to governance processes than governmental and private sector groups, due to funding constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour. This may require that additional efforts be made (and funded where appropriate) to ensure that a plurality of civil society voices are heard in Internet governance processes. We also suggest that consideration be given to the principle of subsidiarity as a guideline for the IGF's relationship with regional and national IGFs. That is to say that country IGFs should be encouraged to take up issues at a national level, a regional IGF will subsume all national concerns in order to build a regional position, and global issues will be predominantly the concern of the global IGF. With such organizational arrangements as proposed above, national reports would feed into the regional IGFs, and regional reports to the global IGF. 6. How best to link with international processes and institutions? Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to bridge between online and offline discussions, so too there could be rapporteurs whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at the IGF and to forward them to external institutions, and to act as a conduit for feedback from those institutions. Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and workshops, since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in the latter. Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions provided that a better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops back into main sessions is realised. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mueller at syr.edu Mon Oct 4 17:41:17 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 17:41:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <1C3E37FA-8E30-43E4-9A95-27DD595A056F@ciroap.org> References: <1C3E37FA-8E30-43E4-9A95-27DD595A056F@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70906DC3677@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Jeremy Thanks for getting this started and for your work on it. Comments below: 1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions? The IGC broadly supports the continuation of the MAG in its present form I don't think we do. Would propose modification of this language to: The IGC broadly supports the continued existence of a balanced multistakeholder advisory group. In this limited role, the MAG has performed fairly well. How about: "In its current role, the MAG has not been an unmitigated disaster." OK, if that's too harsh, please substitute "reasonably" for "fairly well." Also, don't forget that it's ok for an IGC statement to reflect differing views. So if there is a significant chunk of us who believe the MAG has been fantastic, then describe the spectrum. However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads where it may be called upon to produce more tangible outputs. The qualification of the MAG to steer the IGF through this challenging phase of its evolution is less clear. OK. Two sentences above have my complete support In the past, the MAG has been unwilling to depart too radically from the format of the IGF that was established in Athens. Ideas such as speed dialogues, debates, roundtables and messages from the IGF, although strongly supported in some quarters, have each year failed to progress within the MAG due to a lack of consensus, which has been interpreted as requiring unanimity. Whilst the desire not to mess with a process that is working is laudable, a lack of consensus cannot be used to justify inertia, where the IGF's mandate calls for action. I would delete all the words above, and move directly to the next paragraph, which I have modified: To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, [delete: for] the IGF may require more direct lines of accountability to its constituencies, more balanced sectoral representation, and proactive leadership. [delete: utilising a more flexible conception of "rough consensus" to break through stalemates and propel the IGF towards the complete fulfilment of its mandate.] Reducing the size of the MAG might also improve its effectiveness. Moreover, the MAG does not always interact well with the public forum of its own design - the IGF. I am not sure what you mean by this statement - it might require elaboration MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for multistakeholder comment and participation, in a variety of other institutions, processes and fora, both online and offline. Opening up meetings of the MAG to observers, either face to face or remotely, could also assist in making it more accessible and responsive to the broader community. OK 2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG? As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary for it to become more accountable. Part of this process may involve moving on from the existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary General selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by various parties, pursuant to selection criteria that are not published. Hooray! An alternative approach that many from civil society support is the selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process driven by the stakeholder groups. WIth its existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes, the Internet Governance Caucus could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society MAG representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints. Hooray! Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special privileges that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, and special advisors to the chair, currently possess. If the MAG's processes are opened to broader oversight by the community, such special privileges would soon become redundant. Hooray! 3. How best to nominate the MAG Chair? At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN Secretary-General. This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG develops into a body whose members are self-selected by the stakeholders. In that case, it could be that the MAG should select its own chair or chairs, and for that position to rotate between the stakeholder groups. In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the role of the Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder agenda, but to facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de facto multi-stakeholder bureau for the IGF that is responsible for facilitating the fulfilment of the mandate in the Tunis Agenda. 2 paragraphs above ok with me 4. How best to organize open consultations? There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as meetings held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation from around the world, but as meetings that are held online, with provision for some participants to attend in person at a hub in Geneva, or at other hubs. Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves could come to be considered in the same terms. Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously (ie. through comments and discussions that are contributed over an extended period through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on). It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise an electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF participants as means of contributing to open consultations. In particular, MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity to online discussions outside of their closed mailing list, which limits the profile and accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a whole. Fully endorse this entire section. 5. How best to link with regional meetings? The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance to a much broader community of Internet users and citizens, but at the same time we must be careful to ensure that these meetings meet the same basic process criteria as the IGF itself, including adequate participation by civil society at all levels In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to governance processes than governmental and private sector groups, due to funding constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour. This may require that additional efforts be made (and funded where appropriate) to ensure that a plurality of civil society voices are heard in Internet governance processes. We also suggest that consideration be given to the principle of subsidiarity as a guideline for the IGF's relationship with regional and national IGFs. That is to say that country IGFs should be encouraged to take up issues at a national level, a regional IGF will subsume all national concerns in order to build a regional position, and global issues will be predominantly the concern of the global IGF. I have problems with any suggestions that institutionalize national as opposed to transnational regulatory approaches. National governments are doing just fine, thank you very much; what we are doing here is an attempt to institutionalize non-national or transnational approaches. Why put so much emphasis on national? Just refer to "local" or "regional" IGFs. With such organizational arrangements as proposed above, national reports would feed into the regional IGFs, and regional reports to the global IGF. 6. How best to link with international processes and institutions? Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to bridge between online and offline discussions, so too there could be rapporteurs whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at the IGF and to forward them to external institutions, and to act as a conduit for feedback from those institutions. Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and workshops, since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in the latter. Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions provided that a better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops back into main sessions is realised. #6 is ok with me, too. Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4ALL Professor, Technology University of Delft -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 4 19:58:40 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 11:58:40 +1200 Subject: [governance] French Telecoms Regulator has Published a List of 10 Proposals on NN and the IN Message-ID: Dear All, Dear All: *"Following a year-long consultation period the French telecoms regulator has published a list of "Ten Proposals on Network Neutrality and the Internet" that, it hopes, will "promote a lasting state of equilibrium, balance and quality for all networks." Martyn Warwick reports".* See link: http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=46745&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro P.O.Box 17862 Suva Fiji Islands Cell: +679 9982851 Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj "Wisdom is far better than riches." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Oct 4 20:13:15 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 20:13:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70906DC3677@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <1C3E37FA-8E30-43E4-9A95-27DD595A056F@ciroap.org>,<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70906DC3677@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01978B0F1E@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I Know this will shock some - but I agree with Milton : ) And nice job Jeremy. Lee ________________________________________ From: Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:41 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire Jeremy Thanks for getting this started and for your work on it. Comments below: 1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions? The IGC broadly supports the continuation of the MAG in its present form I don’t think we do. Would propose modification of this language to: The IGC broadly supports the continued existence of a balanced multistakeholder advisory group. In this limited role, the MAG has performed fairly well. How about: “In its current role, the MAG has not been an unmitigated disaster.” OK, if that’s too harsh, please substitute “reasonably” for “fairly well.” Also, don’t forget that it’s ok for an IGC statement to reflect differing views. So if there is a significant chunk of us who believe the MAG has been fantastic, then describe the spectrum. However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads where it may be called upon to produce more tangible outputs. The qualification of the MAG to steer the IGF through this challenging phase of its evolution is less clear. OK. Two sentences above have my complete support In the past, the MAG has been unwilling to depart too radically from the format of the IGF that was established in Athens. Ideas such as speed dialogues, debates, roundtables and messages from the IGF, although strongly supported in some quarters, have each year failed to progress within the MAG due to a lack of consensus, which has been interpreted as requiring unanimity. Whilst the desire not to mess with a process that is working is laudable, a lack of consensus cannot be used to justify inertia, where the IGF's mandate calls for action. I would delete all the words above, and move directly to the next paragraph, which I have modified: To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, [delete: for] the IGF may require more direct lines of accountability to its constituencies, more balanced sectoral representation, and proactive leadership. [delete: utilising a more flexible conception of "rough consensus" to break through stalemates and propel the IGF towards the complete fulfilment of its mandate.] Reducing the size of the MAG might also improve its effectiveness. Moreover, the MAG does not always interact well with the public forum of its own design - the IGF. I am not sure what you mean by this statement – it might require elaboration MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for multistakeholder comment and participation, in a variety of other institutions, processes and fora, both online and offline. Opening up meetings of the MAG to observers, either face to face or remotely, could also assist in making it more accessible and responsive to the broader community. OK 2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG? As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary for it to become more accountable. Part of this process may involve moving on from the existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary General selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by various parties, pursuant to selection criteria that are not published. Hooray! An alternative approach that many from civil society support is the selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process driven by the stakeholder groups. WIth its existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes, the Internet Governance Caucus could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society MAG representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints. Hooray! Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special privileges that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, and special advisors to the chair, currently possess. If the MAG's processes are opened to broader oversight by the community, such special privileges would soon become redundant. Hooray! 3. How best to nominate the MAG Chair? At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN Secretary-General. This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG develops into a body whose members are self-selected by the stakeholders. In that case, it could be that the MAG should select its own chair or chairs, and for that position to rotate between the stakeholder groups. In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the role of the Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder agenda, but to facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de facto multi-stakeholder bureau for the IGF that is responsible for facilitating the fulfilment of the mandate in the Tunis Agenda. 2 paragraphs above ok with me 4. How best to organize open consultations? There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as meetings held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation from around the world, but as meetings that are held online, with provision for some participants to attend in person at a hub in Geneva, or at other hubs. Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves could come to be considered in the same terms. Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously (ie. through comments and discussions that are contributed over an extended period through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on). It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise an electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF participants as means of contributing to open consultations. In particular, MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity to online discussions outside of their closed mailing list, which limits the profile and accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a whole. Fully endorse this entire section. 5. How best to link with regional meetings? The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance to a much broader community of Internet users and citizens, but at the same time we must be careful to ensure that these meetings meet the same basic process criteria as the IGF itself, including adequate participation by civil society at all levels In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to governance processes than governmental and private sector groups, due to funding constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour. This may require that additional efforts be made (and funded where appropriate) to ensure that a plurality of civil society voices are heard in Internet governance processes. We also suggest that consideration be given to the principle of subsidiarity as a guideline for the IGF's relationship with regional and national IGFs. That is to say that country IGFs should be encouraged to take up issues at a national level, a regional IGF will subsume all national concerns in order to build a regional position, and global issues will be predominantly the concern of the global IGF. I have problems with any suggestions that institutionalize national as opposed to transnational regulatory approaches. National governments are doing just fine, thank you very much; what we are doing here is an attempt to institutionalize non-national or transnational approaches. Why put so much emphasis on national? Just refer to “local” or “regional” IGFs. With such organizational arrangements as proposed above, national reports would feed into the regional IGFs, and regional reports to the global IGF. 6. How best to link with international processes and institutions? Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to bridge between online and offline discussions, so too there could be rapporteurs whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at the IGF and to forward them to external institutions, and to act as a conduit for feedback from those institutions. Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and workshops, since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in the latter. Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions provided that a better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops back into main sessions is realised. #6 is ok with me, too. Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4ALL Professor, Technology University of Delft ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 5 00:08:48 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:38:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] IG/ IGC and participation - whose, for whom, whose interests are served Message-ID: <4CAAA4D0.7080302@itforchange.net> Hi All Two interesting discussions took place on this list in the last few days, which are closely connected. The discussion on participation between Michael and Meryem on one side and Avri on the other, which unfortunately, or maybe with good reason, took an outsider-insider spin. The other was on how an 'IG web', within which IGC may also be situated, is apparently revolutionizing the world in so many positive ways, particularly revolutionizing means and extent of participation. (There is certainly some solid substance to this argument; look at what the remote participation team has achieved at the IGF.) Also very relevant is the fact that the 'IG web' got mentioned in terms of the e-enabler initiative of GAID (without at all going into what such a top-down tool really meant to people involved in development work). Then there was this discussion on the 'broadband commission report' , which earned some criticism from Michael, and which I too had earlier criticized for it being co-chaired by someone who has a strong interest in the outcomes of the report (with little or no response/ support from the group), but was cited by Wolfgang, an avid proponent of 'IG web', as a useful model on how some real outputs can be got while we invest into IG web model. There seems to be a major overall disconnect here. It appears that there are two sides speaking completely different things. And generally egroups tend to configure themselves in a manner that one kind of thing, rather one kind of 'framing' (George Lakoff), becomes much more acceptable than the other, the reasons for which are much more complex than just the greater reasonableness of one side's arguments over those of the other. Those with fundamentally different views/ 'framing' then withdraw to take on an 'outsider' role, especially if no mutually discursive (and/ or negotiating) space is offered/ built, if they do not indeed leave. In any case, new participation from among those quarters is highly unlikely. This proposed mutually discursive space will consist of questions like; How does the IG world, and specifically IGC, deal with the participation question? Is 'openness' as in 'anyone can participate' enough? If overdone, can such a model actually reduce participation? Is effective and real participation always linked with proactive actions focussed on those that are excluded (which have to be preceded by identifying exclusions), some kind of protective discrimination? Does participation need to judged foremost from outcomes? Does a greater participative-ness lead to, and can only be evidenced by, democratization of power through the society, the best proof of which will of course be found at the edges, where there is the highest marginalisation. So should we not put our 'participative test' lenses to these edges? Should evidence of whether the IG world is more participative than earlier arrangements not come from asking the question, whether IG at present is serving, in fact disproportionately serving, the interests of the marginalised? Micheal seems to very much doubt it. But whether we agree on the outcomes of the present IG dispensation or not, can we agree that that this is a good test of participation. I think the 'participation' discussion can not make progress if we remain struck on process issues, which the IGC, and the IG world in general, has remained focussed for too long now. It is time to move on. Can we take the 'proof of the pudding' approach instead? Can those who say that the new age IG models have hugely revolutionized participation provide any evidence at all that this has led to better representation, or better serving, of the interests of the marginalized groups? This to me is the key question. What has been done in IG till today, ranging from 'framing' issues to actual outcomes, that can be said to be focussed primarily on the interests of these groups? Participation is not just about giving pat responses when exclusions are spoken of; why dont you enroll and be present, and speak up, and make contributions, when there is an open system giving anyone chance to do so. It is much more structural. Power is exercised in every apparently open system, and exercised to a very great extent. The 'apparent' openness may actually make it more difficult to deal with such exercise of power, which is what limits meaningful participation. The best way to go forward, in such a situation, is to discuss the old-fashioned questions of power, best represented in posers like - what outcomes/ impacts have actually shown up, whose interests are being served etc. Can we, as IGC, for a change, committedly get down to a self-introspection over these questions, rather than tom-tomming the great new revolution of participation, and flows of information and the such, which, I can assure you, has begun to sound rather repetitive and boring to the outside progressive CS world. 'Openness' is good only if it is *not* accompanied by a delusion that with it all or most questions of power are overcome. Otherwise, openness becomes a convenient cover for power, making political struggles even more difficult than before. Very often that is what seems to be happening in many IG related forums and discussions. In my contribution to the proposed discussion, I contend that the main socio-political phenomenon underlying what has so approvingly been called as the 'IG web' is a major coming together of, and the interests of, upper-middle classes of most countries, across the spectrum of North and South (and thus too the challenge to this nomenclature). While 'participation' has indeed increased within this new emergent global class, across erstwhile geographic and national boundaries, which is the phenomenon being rejoiced by the celebratory voices here, such 'coming together' and forming a new transnational upper-middle class has had the simultaneous effect of even greater distancing of it from the 'lower' classes within local spaces. And so while the upper classes have joined-up globally through the new ICT based means, discovering and revelling in this new social, cultural and political phenomenon, lower classes are perhaps, to that extent, even more marginalised because of ICTs. Worse, the upper class bonhomie, of borderless engagement and participation, has even taken away the normative categories of 'participation', need to address marginalization, democracy, protective discrimination, representation etc from the lower, marginalized classes. This is a major political loss for these classes. This is how unbridled championing of openness, discussed and promoted without analysis of power relationships, could actually further harm the interests of marginalized groups. It is this what I see as happening which underlies the apparent paradoxes with which I begun this email. 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Oct 5 01:31:56 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 11:01:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe In-Reply-To: References: <201009220234.o8M2YJxF004471@well.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956AD078@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <14C4DEA5-C328-4232-AFD5-46EF05F05491@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Sir Tim Berners-Lee spoke at the 350th Anniversary of the founding of the Royal Society and voiced that " right to freedom as enshrined in Magna Carta are as relevant and important today as they were back in 1215 when the barons forced King John to sign the document - or else!" http://isocindiachennai.blogspot.com/2010/10/magna-carta-of-internet-no-free-man.html Sivasubramanian M On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Dear Bill Drake, > > Why don't we make this real? What if CoE actually elevates it to the status > of a draft document, and works its way around to make this a 'draft treaty'? > If that happens, it would be good work, very, very good work and good > governance: Governments taking initiatives to protect the Internet from > Governments. > > To quote from the artiile, "The draft international law has been compared > to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which sought to prevent space exploration > being pursued for anything less than the benefit of all human kind. The > Internet Treaty would similarly seek to preserve the Internet as a global > system of free communication that transcends national borders" > > If the Council of Europe, together with other like minded European > organizations works on a document similar to the Outer Space Treaty, it > would be giant step towards good governance. > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:41 PM, William Drake < > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: > >> >> >> Still more confused and clueless reportage on IG…. >> >> The author gets hold of a concept paper from a Vilnius workshop in which >> Wolfgang, Rolf and a few other people put forward for discussion some >> guiding principles concerning cross-border flows and mutual obligations >> between states they hope could someday fit into a possible COE convention >> (FWIW, having moderated the ws and been part of the dialogue around this for >> awhile, IMHO this seems unlikely to go anywhere without significant changes, >> and maybe not even then). Then he declares the paper is a "draft treaty" >> that has been "proposed by Europe." Then he proceeds to misconstrue what >> the thing would do and concludes it "will effectively create a world >> government of the Internet." These points he supports with extended quotes >> of other people he ran into Vilnius who were actually talking about entirely >> different matters...Europe, states, the Internet, regulation…it's all the >> same thing, I guess. >> >> Should get him a lot of Google hits though, which presumably will be >> welcome to a freelance journalist. "As long as they spell my name right…" >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> On Sep 22, 2010, at 4:59 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> > Don't know about Vilnius. >> > >> > Several of us were talking about a an Internet treaty or framework >> convention at earlier IGF's and on this list. >> > >> > But we were told that was impossibly radical/might upset some of the >> powers that be. >> > ________________________________________ >> > From: Louis Pouzin [pouzin at well.com] >> > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:34 PM >> > To: IGF Governance >> > Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe >> > >> > On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:14:33 -0700, Sylvia Caras wrote: >> >> >> http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/9/20/international-internet-treaty-proposed-europe/ >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > Was this proposal announced or presented in an IGF session in Vilnius ? >> by whom ? >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 >> www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake >> *********************************************************** >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 meryem at marzouki.info Tue Oct 5 04:02:12 2010 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 10:02:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01978B0F1E@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <1C3E37FA-8E30-43E4-9A95-27DD595A056F@ciroap.org>,<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70906DC3677@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01978B0F1E@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <9013243F-3258-46A5-A7BA-61943741AA97@marzouki.info> Thank you so much Jeremy for drafting this statement. Since people are already under shock following Lee's reply, let me add to the trauma: I also agree with Milton's modifications. Best, Meryem Le 5 oct. 10 à 02:13, Lee W McKnight a écrit : > I Know this will shock some - but I agree with Milton : ) > > And nice job Jeremy. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:41 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm' > Subject: RE: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire > > Jeremy > Thanks for getting this started and for your work on it. Comments > below: > > 1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out > in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions? > > The IGC broadly supports the continuation of the MAG in its present > form > > I don’t think we do. Would propose modification of this language to: > > The IGC broadly supports the continued existence of a balanced > multistakeholder advisory group. > > In this limited role, the MAG has performed fairly well. > > > How about: “In its current role, the MAG has not been an > unmitigated disaster.” > OK, if that’s too harsh, please substitute “reasonably” for “fairly > well.” > Also, don’t forget that it’s ok for an IGC statement to reflect > differing views. So if there is a significant chunk of us who > believe the MAG has been fantastic, then describe the spectrum. > > However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads where it may be called > upon to produce more tangible outputs. The qualification of the > MAG to steer the IGF through this challenging phase of its > evolution is less clear. > > OK. Two sentences above have my complete support > > In the past, the MAG has been unwilling to depart too radically > from the format of the IGF that was established in Athens. Ideas > such as speed dialogues, debates, roundtables and messages from the > IGF, although strongly supported in some quarters, have each year > failed to progress within the MAG due to a lack of consensus, which > has been interpreted as requiring unanimity. > Whilst the desire not to mess with a process that is working is > laudable, a lack of consensus cannot be used to justify inertia, > where the IGF's mandate calls for action. > > I would delete all the words above, and move directly to the next > paragraph, which I have modified: > > To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, [delete: > for] the IGF may require more direct lines of accountability to its > constituencies, more balanced sectoral representation, and > proactive leadership. [delete: utilising a more flexible conception > of "rough consensus" to break through stalemates and propel the IGF > towards the complete fulfilment of its mandate.] Reducing the size > of the MAG might also improve its effectiveness. > > Moreover, the MAG does not always interact well with the public > forum of its own design - the IGF. > > I am not sure what you mean by this statement – it might require > elaboration > > MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for > multistakeholder comment and participation, in a variety of other > institutions, processes and fora, both online and offline. Opening > up meetings of the MAG to observers, either face to face or > remotely, could also assist in making it more accessible and > responsive to the broader community. > > OK > > 2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG? > > As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary > for it to become more accountable. Part of this process may > involve moving on from the > existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary > General selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by > various parties, pursuant to selection criteria that are not > published. > > Hooray! > > An alternative approach that many from civil society support is the > selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process driven > by the stakeholder groups. WIth its existing open, accountable, > transparent and democratic processes, the Internet Governance > Caucus could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select > civil society MAG representatives, subject to appropriate criteria > to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints. > > Hooray! > > Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special > privileges that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, > and special advisors to the chair, currently possess. If the MAG's > processes are opened to broader oversight by the community, such > special privileges would soon become redundant. > > Hooray! > > 3. How best to nominate the MAG Chair? > > At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN > Secretary-General. This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG > develops into a body whose members are self-selected by the > stakeholders. In that case, it could be that the MAG should select > its own chair or chairs, and for that position to rotate between > the stakeholder groups. > > In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the > role of the Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder > agenda, but to facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de > facto multi-stakeholder bureau for the IGF that is responsible for > facilitating the fulfilment of the mandate in the Tunis Agenda. > > 2 paragraphs above ok with me > > 4. How best to organize open consultations? > > There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as > meetings held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation > from around the world, but as meetings that are held online, with > provision for some participants to attend in person at a hub in > Geneva, or at other hubs. Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves > could come to be considered in the same terms. > > Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for > participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and > asynchronously (ie. through comments and discussions that are > contributed over an extended period through blogs, Twitter, mailing > lists, Facebook and so on). > > It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise > an electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of > asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF > participants as means of contributing to open consultations. In > particular, MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity > to online discussions outside of their closed mailing list, which > limits the profile and accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a > whole. > > Fully endorse this entire section. > > 5. How best to link with regional meetings? > > The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the multi- > stakeholder model of Internet governance to a much broader > community of Internet users and citizens, but at the same time we > must be careful to ensure that these meetings meet the same basic > process criteria as the IGF itself, including adequate > participation by > civil society at all levels > > In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to > governance processes than governmental and private sector groups, > due to funding constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour. > This may require that additional efforts be made (and funded where > appropriate) to ensure that a plurality of civil society voices are > heard in Internet governance processes. > > We also suggest that consideration be given to the principle of > subsidiarity as a guideline for the IGF's relationship with > regional and national IGFs. That is to say that country IGFs > should be encouraged to take up issues at a national level, a > regional IGF will subsume all national concerns in order to build a > regional position, and global issues will be predominantly the > concern of the global IGF. > > I have problems with any suggestions that institutionalize national > as opposed to transnational regulatory approaches. National > governments are doing just fine, thank you very much; what we are > doing here is an attempt to institutionalize non-national or > transnational approaches. Why put so much emphasis on national? > Just refer to “local” or “regional” IGFs. > > With such organizational arrangements as proposed above, national > reports would feed into the regional IGFs, and regional reports to > the global IGF. > > 6. How best to link with international processes and institutions? > > Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to > bridge between online and offline discussions, so too there could > be rapporteurs whose job it would be to summarise relevant > discussions at the IGF and to forward them to external > institutions, and to act as a conduit for feedback from those > institutions. > > Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and > workshops, since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes > place in the latter. Alternatively, they could be limited to the > main sessions provided that a better mechanism for feeding the > output of workshops back into main sessions is realised. > > #6 is ok with me, too. > > Milton L. Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4ALL Professor, Technology University of Delft > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Oct 5 05:39:11 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 11:39:11 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire References: <1C3E37FA-8E30-43E4-9A95-27DD595A056F@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70906DC3677@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0723F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> I also agree broadly with Jeremies orginal text and Miltons comments. Two additional ideas: Shouldn´t we say something on "output"? And what about an independent "NomCom" to select MAG members? wolfgang ________________________________ Fra: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sendt: ma 04-10-2010 23:41 Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Emne: RE: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire Jeremy Thanks for getting this started and for your work on it. Comments below: 1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions? The IGC broadly supports the continuation of the MAG in its present form I don't think we do. Would propose modification of this language to: The IGC broadly supports the continued existence of a balanced multistakeholder advisory group. In this limited role, the MAG has performed fairly well. How about: "In its current role, the MAG has not been an unmitigated disaster." OK, if that's too harsh, please substitute "reasonably" for "fairly well." Also, don't forget that it's ok for an IGC statement to reflect differing views. So if there is a significant chunk of us who believe the MAG has been fantastic, then describe the spectrum. However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads where it may be called upon to produce more tangible outputs. The qualification of the MAG to steer the IGF through this challenging phase of its evolution is less clear. OK. Two sentences above have my complete support In the past, the MAG has been unwilling to depart too radically from the format of the IGF that was established in Athens. Ideas such as speed dialogues, debates, roundtables and messages from the IGF, although strongly supported in some quarters, have each year failed to progress within the MAG due to a lack of consensus, which has been interpreted as requiring unanimity. Whilst the desire not to mess with a process that is working is laudable, a lack of consensus cannot be used to justify inertia, where the IGF's mandate calls for action. I would delete all the words above, and move directly to the next paragraph, which I have modified: To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, [delete: for] the IGF may require more direct lines of accountability to its constituencies, more balanced sectoral representation, and proactive leadership. [delete: utilising a more flexible conception of "rough consensus" to break through stalemates and propel the IGF towards the complete fulfilment of its mandate.] Reducing the size of the MAG might also improve its effectiveness. Moreover, the MAG does not always interact well with the public forum of its own design - the IGF. I am not sure what you mean by this statement - it might require elaboration MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for multistakeholder comment and participation, in a variety of other institutions, processes and fora, both online and offline. Opening up meetings of the MAG to observers, either face to face or remotely, could also assist in making it more accessible and responsive to the broader community. OK 2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG? As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary for it to become more accountable. Part of this process may involve moving on from the existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary General selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by various parties, pursuant to selection criteria that are not published. Hooray! An alternative approach that many from civil society support is the selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process driven by the stakeholder groups. WIth its existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes, the Internet Governance Caucus could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society MAG representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints. Hooray! Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special privileges that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, and special advisors to the chair, currently possess. If the MAG's processes are opened to broader oversight by the community, such special privileges would soon become redundant. Hooray! 3. How best to nominate the MAG Chair? At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN Secretary-General. This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG develops into a body whose members are self-selected by the stakeholders. In that case, it could be that the MAG should select its own chair or chairs, and for that position to rotate between the stakeholder groups. In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the role of the Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder agenda, but to facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de facto multi-stakeholder bureau for the IGF that is responsible for facilitating the fulfilment of the mandate in the Tunis Agenda. 2 paragraphs above ok with me 4. How best to organize open consultations? There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as meetings held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation from around the world, but as meetings that are held online, with provision for some participants to attend in person at a hub in Geneva, or at other hubs. Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves could come to be considered in the same terms. Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously (ie. through comments and discussions that are contributed over an extended period through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on). It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise an electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF participants as means of contributing to open consultations. In particular, MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity to online discussions outside of their closed mailing list, which limits the profile and accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a whole. Fully endorse this entire section. 5. How best to link with regional meetings? The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance to a much broader community of Internet users and citizens, but at the same time we must be careful to ensure that these meetings meet the same basic process criteria as the IGF itself, including adequate participation by civil society at all levels In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to governance processes than governmental and private sector groups, due to funding constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour. This may require that additional efforts be made (and funded where appropriate) to ensure that a plurality of civil society voices are heard in Internet governance processes. We also suggest that consideration be given to the principle of subsidiarity as a guideline for the IGF's relationship with regional and national IGFs. That is to say that country IGFs should be encouraged to take up issues at a national level, a regional IGF will subsume all national concerns in order to build a regional position, and global issues will be predominantly the concern of the global IGF. I have problems with any suggestions that institutionalize national as opposed to transnational regulatory approaches. National governments are doing just fine, thank you very much; what we are doing here is an attempt to institutionalize non-national or transnational approaches. Why put so much emphasis on national? Just refer to "local" or "regional" IGFs. With such organizational arrangements as proposed above, national reports would feed into the regional IGFs, and regional reports to the global IGF. 6. How best to link with international processes and institutions? Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to bridge between online and offline discussions, so too there could be rapporteurs whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at the IGF and to forward them to external institutions, and to act as a conduit for feedback from those institutions. Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and workshops, since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in the latter. Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions provided that a better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops back into main sessions is realised. #6 is ok with me, too. Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4ALL Professor, Technology University of Delft ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 5 07:58:30 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 13:58:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <9013243F-3258-46A5-A7BA-61943741AA97@marzouki.info> References: <1C3E37FA-8E30-43E4-9A95-27DD595A056F@ciroap.org>,<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70906DC3677@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01978B0F1E@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <9013243F-3258-46A5-A7BA-61943741AA97@marzouki.info> Message-ID: To add to the level of disorientation, I agree with Milton as well. Bill On Oct 5, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Thank you so much Jeremy for drafting this statement. > Since people are already under shock following Lee's reply, let me add to the trauma: I also agree with Milton's modifications. > Best, > Meryem > > Le 5 oct. 10 à 02:13, Lee W McKnight a écrit : > >> I Know this will shock some - but I agree with Milton : ) >> >> And nice job Jeremy. >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] >> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:41 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm' >> Subject: RE: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire >> >> Jeremy >> Thanks for getting this started and for your work on it. Comments below: >> >> 1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions? >> >> The IGC broadly supports the continuation of the MAG in its present form >> >> I don’t think we do. Would propose modification of this language to: >> >> The IGC broadly supports the continued existence of a balanced multistakeholder advisory group. >> >> In this limited role, the MAG has performed fairly well. >> >> >> How about: “In its current role, the MAG has not been an unmitigated disaster.” >> OK, if that’s too harsh, please substitute “reasonably” for “fairly well.” >> Also, don’t forget that it’s ok for an IGC statement to reflect differing views. So if there is a significant chunk of us who believe the MAG has been fantastic, then describe the spectrum. >> >> However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads where it may be called upon to produce more tangible outputs. The qualification of the MAG to steer the IGF through this challenging phase of its evolution is less clear. >> >> OK. Two sentences above have my complete support >> >> In the past, the MAG has been unwilling to depart too radically from the format of the IGF that was established in Athens. Ideas such as speed dialogues, debates, roundtables and messages from the IGF, although strongly supported in some quarters, have each year failed to progress within the MAG due to a lack of consensus, which has been interpreted as requiring unanimity. >> Whilst the desire not to mess with a process that is working is laudable, a lack of consensus cannot be used to justify inertia, where the IGF's mandate calls for action. >> >> I would delete all the words above, and move directly to the next paragraph, which I have modified: >> >> To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, [delete: for] the IGF may require more direct lines of accountability to its constituencies, more balanced sectoral representation, and proactive leadership. [delete: utilising a more flexible conception of "rough consensus" to break through stalemates and propel the IGF towards the complete fulfilment of its mandate.] Reducing the size of the MAG might also improve its effectiveness. >> >> Moreover, the MAG does not always interact well with the public forum of its own design - the IGF. >> >> I am not sure what you mean by this statement – it might require elaboration >> >> MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for multistakeholder comment and participation, in a variety of other institutions, processes and fora, both online and offline. Opening up meetings of the MAG to observers, either face to face or remotely, could also assist in making it more accessible and responsive to the broader community. >> >> OK >> >> 2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG? >> >> As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary for it to become more accountable. Part of this process may involve moving on from the >> existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary General selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by various parties, pursuant to selection criteria that are not published. >> >> Hooray! >> >> An alternative approach that many from civil society support is the selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process driven by the stakeholder groups. WIth its existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes, the Internet Governance Caucus could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society MAG representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints. >> >> Hooray! >> >> Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special privileges that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, and special advisors to the chair, currently possess. If the MAG's processes are opened to broader oversight by the community, such special privileges would soon become redundant. >> >> Hooray! >> >> 3. How best to nominate the MAG Chair? >> >> At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN Secretary-General. This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG develops into a body whose members are self-selected by the stakeholders. In that case, it could be that the MAG should select its own chair or chairs, and for that position to rotate between the stakeholder groups. >> >> In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the role of the Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder agenda, but to facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de facto multi-stakeholder bureau for the IGF that is responsible for facilitating the fulfilment of the mandate in the Tunis Agenda. >> >> 2 paragraphs above ok with me >> >> 4. How best to organize open consultations? >> >> There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as meetings held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation from around the world, but as meetings that are held online, with provision for some participants to attend in person at a hub in Geneva, or at other hubs. Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves could come to be considered in the same terms. >> >> Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously (ie. through comments and discussions that are contributed over an extended period through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on). >> >> It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise an electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF participants as means of contributing to open consultations. In particular, MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity to online discussions outside of their closed mailing list, which limits the profile and accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a whole. >> >> Fully endorse this entire section. >> >> 5. How best to link with regional meetings? >> >> The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance to a much broader community of Internet users and citizens, but at the same time we must be careful to ensure that these meetings meet the same basic process criteria as the IGF itself, including adequate participation by >> civil society at all levels >> >> In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to governance processes than governmental and private sector groups, due to funding constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour. This may require that additional efforts be made (and funded where appropriate) to ensure that a plurality of civil society voices are heard in Internet governance processes. >> >> We also suggest that consideration be given to the principle of subsidiarity as a guideline for the IGF's relationship with regional and national IGFs. That is to say that country IGFs should be encouraged to take up issues at a national level, a regional IGF will subsume all national concerns in order to build a regional position, and global issues will be predominantly the concern of the global IGF. >> >> I have problems with any suggestions that institutionalize national as opposed to transnational regulatory approaches. National governments are doing just fine, thank you very much; what we are doing here is an attempt to institutionalize non-national or transnational approaches. Why put so much emphasis on national? Just refer to “local” or “regional” IGFs. >> >> With such organizational arrangements as proposed above, national reports would feed into the regional IGFs, and regional reports to the global IGF. >> >> 6. How best to link with international processes and institutions? >> >> Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to bridge between online and offline discussions, so too there could be rapporteurs whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at the IGF and to forward them to external institutions, and to act as a conduit for feedback from those institutions. >> >> Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and workshops, since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in the latter. Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions provided that a better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops back into main sessions is realised. >> >> #6 is ok with me, too. >> >> Milton L. Mueller >> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >> XS4ALL Professor, Technology University of Delft >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 5 08:05:21 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:35:21 +0530 Subject: SV: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0723F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1C3E37FA-8E30-43E4-9A95-27DD595A056F@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70906DC3677@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0723F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4CAB1481.5010706@itforchange.net> I too broadly agree with Jeremy plus Milton's text. Well done Jeremy, this is really meaty, and addresses key issues head on. I agree with Milton that mentioning of the principle of subsidiarity vis a vis national and regional IGF should be avoided. It cana be quoted and used in dangerous ways. However, I disagree with Milton's edits on Jeremy's text seeking removal of the following part, though its language can be improved, and at places changed substantively. "In the past, the MAG has been unwilling to depart too radically from the format of the IGF that was established in Athens. Ideas such as speed dialogues, debates, roundtables and messages from the IGF, although strongly supported in some quarters, have each year failed to progress within the MAG due to a lack of consensus, which has been interpreted as requiring unanimity. Whilst the desire not to mess with a process that is working is laudable, a lack of consensus cannot be used to justify inertia, where the IGF's mandate calls for action. "(Jeremy's text) "I would delete all the words above, and move directly to the next paragraph, which I have modified:" (Milton) I think we should mention how we would like the MAG ((or a MAG like MS body, as per the previous text) to play an active role in any possible improvements towards a greater outcome orientation that would hopefully be suggested by the ongoing IGF improvement process. Since there is no other clear body or structure in and of the IGF, any possible suggestions for improvements like inter-sessional work, choosing of key issues for more focussed work, working groups on issues, background papers etc will require the MAG to play an important part. We must mention this, and appeal to the MAG to be more open to such possibilities, and take its role in any possible improvements to the IGF format, outcomes etc seriously through undergoing all changes in its work methods that may be required for this purpose. Even within the existing functions of the IGF, it should always seek to evolve the IGF format towards greater effectiveness in playing the role that the IGF needs to have in global IG policy space, as was envisioned by the WSIS. We should call for MAG to be clearly more than a program committee and to guide the IGF actively towards achieving the various responsibilities and mandates that it has. Agree with Wolfgang that we should mention something about moving towards greater outcome/ output orientation. But dont agree with the NomCom proposal. More comments later. Parminder On Tuesday 05 October 2010 03:09 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > I also agree broadly with Jeremies orginal text and Miltons comments. > > Two additional ideas: Shouldn´t we say something on "output"? And what about an independent "NomCom" to select MAG members? > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Fra: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sendt: ma 04-10-2010 23:41 > Til:governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm' > Emne: RE: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire > > > > Jeremy > > Thanks for getting this started and for your work on it. Comments below: > > > > 1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions? > > > > The IGC broadly supports the continuation of the MAG in its present form > > > > I don't think we do. Would propose modification of this language to: > > > > The IGC broadly supports the continued existence of a balanced multistakeholder advisory group. > > > > In this limited role, the MAG has performed fairly well. > > > > > > How about: "In its current role, the MAG has not been an unmitigated disaster." > > OK, if that's too harsh, please substitute "reasonably" for "fairly well." > > Also, don't forget that it's ok for an IGC statement to reflect differing views. So if there is a significant chunk of us who believe the MAG has been fantastic, then describe the spectrum. > > > > However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads where it may be called upon to produce more tangible outputs. The qualification of the MAG to steer the IGF through this challenging phase of its evolution is less clear. > > > > OK. Two sentences above have my complete support > > > > In the past, the MAG has been unwilling to depart too radically from the format of the IGF that was established in Athens. Ideas such as speed dialogues, debates, roundtables and messages from the IGF, although strongly supported in some quarters, have each year failed to progress within the MAG due to a lack of consensus, which has been interpreted as requiring unanimity. > > Whilst the desire not to mess with a process that is working is laudable, a lack of consensus cannot be used to justify inertia, where the IGF's mandate calls for action. > > > > I would delete all the words above, and move directly to the next paragraph, which I have modified: > > > > To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, [delete: for] the IGF may require more direct lines of accountability to its constituencies, more balanced sectoral representation, and proactive leadership. [delete: utilising a more flexible conception of "rough consensus" to break through stalemates and propel the IGF towards the complete fulfilment of its mandate.] Reducing the size of the MAG might also improve its effectiveness. > > > > Moreover, the MAG does not always interact well with the public forum of its own design - the IGF. > > > > I am not sure what you mean by this statement - it might require elaboration > > > > MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for multistakeholder comment and participation, in a variety of other institutions, processes and fora, both online and offline. Opening up meetings of the MAG to observers, either face to face or remotely, could also assist in making it more accessible and responsive to the broader community. > > > > OK > > > > 2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG? > > > > As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary for it to become more accountable. Part of this process may involve moving on from the > > existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary General selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by various parties, pursuant to selection criteria that are not published. > > > > Hooray! > > > > An alternative approach that many from civil society support is the selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process driven by the stakeholder groups. WIth its existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes, the Internet Governance Caucus could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society MAG representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints. > > > > Hooray! > > > > Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special privileges that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, and special advisors to the chair, currently possess. If the MAG's processes are opened to broader oversight by the community, such special privileges would soon become redundant. > > > > Hooray! > > > > 3. How best to nominate the MAG Chair? > > > > At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN Secretary-General. This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG develops into a body whose members are self-selected by the stakeholders. In that case, it could be that the MAG should select its own chair or chairs, and for that position to rotate between the stakeholder groups. > > > > In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the role of the Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder agenda, but to facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de facto multi-stakeholder bureau for the IGF that is responsible for facilitating the fulfilment of the mandate in the Tunis Agenda. > > > > 2 paragraphs above ok with me > > > > 4. How best to organize open consultations? > > > > There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as meetings held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation from around the world, but as meetings that are held online, with provision for some participants to attend in person at a hub in Geneva, or at other hubs. Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves could come to be considered in the same terms. > > > > Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously (ie. through comments and discussions that are contributed over an extended period through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on). > > > > It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise an electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF participants as means of contributing to open consultations. In particular, MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity to online discussions outside of their closed mailing list, which limits the profile and accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a whole. > > > > Fully endorse this entire section. > > > > 5. How best to link with regional meetings? > > > > The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance to a much broader community of Internet users and citizens, but at the same time we must be careful to ensure that these meetings meet the same basic process criteria as the IGF itself, including adequate participation by > > civil society at all levels > > > > In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to governance processes than governmental and private sector groups, due to funding constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour. This may require that additional efforts be made (and funded where appropriate) to ensure that a plurality of civil society voices are heard in Internet governance processes. > > > > We also suggest that consideration be given to the principle of subsidiarity as a guideline for the IGF's relationship with regional and national IGFs. That is to say that country IGFs should be encouraged to take up issues at a national level, a regional IGF will subsume all national concerns in order to build a regional position, and global issues will be predominantly the concern of the global IGF. > > > > I have problems with any suggestions that institutionalize national as opposed to transnational regulatory approaches. National governments are doing just fine, thank you very much; what we are doing here is an attempt to institutionalize non-national or transnational approaches. Why put so much emphasis on national? Just refer to "local" or "regional" IGFs. > > > > With such organizational arrangements as proposed above, national reports would feed into the regional IGFs, and regional reports to the global IGF. > > > > 6. How best to link with international processes and institutions? > > > > Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to bridge between online and offline discussions, so too there could be rapporteurs whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at the IGF and to forward them to external institutions, and to act as a conduit for feedback from those institutions. > > > > Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and workshops, since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in the latter. Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions provided that a better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops back into main sessions is realised. > > > > #6 is ok with me, too. > > > > Milton L. Mueller > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > XS4ALL Professor, Technology University of Delft > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue Oct 5 12:10:08 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 01:10:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: <1C3E37FA-8E30-43E4-9A95-27DD595A056F@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70906DC3677@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01978B0F1E@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <9013243F-3258-46A5-A7BA-61943741AA97@marzouki.info> Message-ID: Thank you Jeremy for kicking off this important collaborative work. And I also largely agree with Milton, Wolfgang, and other interventions. I find one important element not spelled out, however, that is the "development" orientation. I am not sure where best to insert, yet. I mean while the numeric balance of MAG composition is considered well, members from both developing and developed parts of the world are reasonably balanced, the actual participation to IGF meetings, outputs or outcomes of developmental agendas and their progress are still far from satisfactory. Some of the panels are totally occupied by "North" and "commercial", even we have some excellent sessions with developmental aspects. I don't want to just "complain", rather I like to put some kind of positive proposal to change this situation for the next round. I also like to mention about the "language" issue. As I put into the Governance list during Vilnius meeting, we could propose to enlarge non-English languages into working languages of some sessions. Again, I am not sure where to put this kind of ideas, this time, but I really like to see the "diversity" exercised at or by IGF itself. izumi 2010/10/5 William Drake : > To add to the level of disorientation, I agree with Milton as well. > > Bill > > On Oct 5, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> Thank you so much Jeremy for drafting this statement. >> Since people are already under shock following Lee's reply, let me add to the trauma: I also agree with Milton's modifications. >> Best, >> Meryem >> >> Le 5 oct. 10 à 02:13, Lee W McKnight a écrit : >> >>> I Know this will shock some - but I agree with Milton : ) >>> >>> And nice job Jeremy. >>> >>> Lee ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Tue Oct 5 12:12:24 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:12:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70906DC3677@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <1C3E37FA-8E30-43E4-9A95-27DD595A056F@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70906DC3677@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5666067.1855.1286295144794.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g31> Many thanks to Jeremy for his draft response. I fully support Milton's views (btw : I do appreciate his sense of humour !) and suggestions. best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT  > Message du 04/10/10 23:42 > De : "Milton L Mueller" > A : "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , "'Jeremy Malcolm'" > Copie à : > Objet : RE: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire > > Jeremy Thanks for getting this started and for your work on it. Comments below:   1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions?   The IGC broadly supports the continuation of the MAG in its present form   I don’t think we do. Would propose modification of this language to:   The IGC broadly supports the continued existence of a balanced multistakeholder advisory group.   In this limited role, the MAG has performed fairly well.   How about: “In its current role, the MAG has not been an unmitigated disaster.” OK, if that’s too harsh, please substitute “reasonably” for “fairly well.” Also, don’t forget that it’s ok for an IGC statement to reflect differing views. So if there is a significant chunk of us who believe the MAG has been fantastic, then describe the spectrum.   However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads where it may be called upon to produce more tangible outputs.  The qualification of the MAG to steer the IGF through this challenging phase of its evolution is less clear.   OK. Two sentences above have my complete support   In the past, the MAG has been unwilling to depart too radically from the format of the IGF that  was established in Athens.  Ideas such as speed dialogues, debates, roundtables and messages from the IGF, although strongly supported in some quarters, have each year failed to progress within the MAG due to a lack of consensus, which has been interpreted as requiring unanimity. Whilst the desire not to mess with a process that is working is laudable, a lack of consensus cannot be used to justify inertia, where the IGF's mandate calls for action.     I would delete all the words above, and move directly to the next paragraph, which I have modified:   To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, [delete: for] the IGF may require more direct lines of accountability to its constituencies, more balanced sectoral representation, and proactive leadership. [delete: utilising a more flexible conception of "rough consensus" to break through stalemates and propel the IGF towards the complete fulfilment of its mandate.]  Reducing the size of the MAG might also improve its effectiveness.   Moreover, the MAG does not always interact well with the public forum of its own design - the IGF.   I am not sure what you mean by this statement – it might require elaboration   MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for multistakeholder comment and participation, in a variety of other institutions, processes and fora, both online and offline.  Opening up meetings of the MAG to observers, either face to face or remotely, could also assist in making it more accessible and responsive to the broader community.   OK   2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG?   As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary for it to become more accountable.  Part of this process may involve moving on from the existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary General selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by various parties, pursuant to selection criteria that are not published.   Hooray!   An alternative approach that many from civil society support is the selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process driven by the stakeholder groups.  WIth its existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes, the Internet Governance Caucus could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society MAG representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints.   Hooray!   Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special privileges that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, and special advisors to the chair, currently possess.  If the MAG's processes are opened to broader oversight by the community, such special privileges would soon become redundant.   Hooray!   3. How best to nominate the MAG Chair?   At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN Secretary-General.  This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG develops into a body whose members are self-selected by the stakeholders.  In that case, it could be that the MAG should select its own chair or chairs, and for that position to rotate between the stakeholder groups.   In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the role of the Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder agenda, but to facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de facto multi-stakeholder bureau for the IGF that is responsible for facilitating the fulfilment of the mandate in the Tunis Agenda.   2 paragraphs above ok with me   4. How best to organize open consultations?   There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as meetings held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation from around the world, but as meetings that are held online, with provision for some participants to attend in person at a hub in Geneva, or at other hubs.  Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves could come to be considered in the same terms.   Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously (ie. through comments and discussions that are contributed over an extended period through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on).   It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise an electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF participants as means of contributing to open consultations.  In particular, MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity to online discussions outside of their closed mailing list, which limits the profile and accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a whole.   Fully endorse this entire section.   5. How best to link with regional meetings?   The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance to a much broader community of Internet users and citizens, but at the same time we must be careful to ensure that these meetings meet the same basic process criteria as the IGF itself, including adequate participation by  civil society at all levels   In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to governance processes than governmental and private sector groups, due to funding constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour.  This may require that additional efforts be made (and funded where appropriate) to ensure that a plurality of civil society voices are heard in Internet governance processes.   We also suggest that consideration be given to the principle of subsidiarity as a guideline for the IGF's relationship with regional and national IGFs.  That is to say that country IGFs should be encouraged to take up issues at a national level, a regional IGF will subsume all national concerns in order to build a regional position, and global issues will be predominantly the concern of the global IGF.   I have problems with any suggestions that institutionalize national as opposed to transnational regulatory approaches. National governments are doing just fine, thank you very much; what we are doing here is an attempt to institutionalize non-national or transnational approaches. Why put so much emphasis on national? Just refer to “local” or “regional” IGFs.   With such organizational arrangements as proposed above, national reports would feed into the regional IGFs, and regional reports to the global IGF.   6. How best to link with international processes and institutions?   Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to bridge between online and offline discussions, so too there could be rapporteurs whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at the IGF and to forward them to external institutions, and to act as a conduit for feedback from those institutions.   Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and workshops, since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in the latter.  Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions provided that a better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops back into main sessions is realised.   #6 is ok with me, too.   Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4ALL Professor, Technology University of Delft     > > [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Oct 5 13:27:06 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 22:57:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0723F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1C3E37FA-8E30-43E4-9A95-27DD595A056F@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70906DC3677@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0723F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: There was an argument against the idea of an independant nomcom, by Milton, June 12 who said "Nominating committees are just ways for insider groups to perpetuate themselves. We all know this from the ICANN process" Though this comment is harsh, there indeed is some truth in the statement, at least, as a reflection of the political possibility of insider groups perpetuating themselves by filling up nomcom seats, working their way around within the nomcom. If this caution is built into the nomcom design, and checks and balances could be built in, then an ICANN-like nomcom for MAG is a good idea. Sivasubramanian M 2010/10/5 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > I also agree broadly with Jeremies orginal text and Miltons comments. > > Two additional ideas: Shouldn´t we say something on "output"? And what > about an independent "NomCom" to select MAG members? > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Fra: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sendt: ma 04-10-2010 23:41 > Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm' > Emne: RE: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire > > > > Jeremy > > Thanks for getting this started and for your work on it. Comments below: > > > > 1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the > Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions? > > > > The IGC broadly supports the continuation of the MAG in its present form > > > > I don't think we do. Would propose modification of this language to: > > > > The IGC broadly supports the continued existence of a balanced > multistakeholder advisory group. > > > > In this limited role, the MAG has performed fairly well. > > > > > > How about: "In its current role, the MAG has not been an unmitigated > disaster." > > OK, if that's too harsh, please substitute "reasonably" for "fairly well." > > Also, don't forget that it's ok for an IGC statement to reflect differing > views. So if there is a significant chunk of us who believe the MAG has been > fantastic, then describe the spectrum. > > > > However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads where it may be called upon to > produce more tangible outputs. The qualification of the MAG to steer the > IGF through this challenging phase of its evolution is less clear. > > > > OK. Two sentences above have my complete support > > > > In the past, the MAG has been unwilling to depart too radically from the > format of the IGF that was established in Athens. Ideas such as speed > dialogues, debates, roundtables and messages from the IGF, although strongly > supported in some quarters, have each year failed to progress within the MAG > due to a lack of consensus, which has been interpreted as requiring > unanimity. > > Whilst the desire not to mess with a process that is working is laudable, a > lack of consensus cannot be used to justify inertia, where the IGF's mandate > calls for action. > > > > I would delete all the words above, and move directly to the next > paragraph, which I have modified: > > > > To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, [delete: for] the > IGF may require more direct lines of accountability to its constituencies, > more balanced sectoral representation, and proactive leadership. [delete: > utilising a more flexible conception of "rough consensus" to break through > stalemates and propel the IGF towards the complete fulfilment of its > mandate.] Reducing the size of the MAG might also improve its > effectiveness. > > > > Moreover, the MAG does not always interact well with the public forum of > its own design - the IGF. > > > > I am not sure what you mean by this statement - it might require > elaboration > > > > MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for multistakeholder > comment and participation, in a variety of other institutions, processes and > fora, both online and offline. Opening up meetings of the MAG to observers, > either face to face or remotely, could also assist in making it more > accessible and responsive to the broader community. > > > > OK > > > > 2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG? > > > > As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary for it > to become more accountable. Part of this process may involve moving on from > the > > existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary General > selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by various parties, > pursuant to selection criteria that are not published. > > > > Hooray! > > > > An alternative approach that many from civil society support is the > selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process driven by the > stakeholder groups. WIth its existing open, accountable, transparent and > democratic processes, the Internet Governance Caucus could form the > foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society MAG > representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and > gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints. > > > > Hooray! > > > > Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special > privileges that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, and > special advisors to the chair, currently possess. If the MAG's processes > are opened to broader oversight by the community, such special privileges > would soon become redundant. > > > > Hooray! > > > > 3. How best to nominate the MAG Chair? > > > > At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN > Secretary-General. This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG develops > into a body whose members are self-selected by the stakeholders. In that > case, it could be that the MAG should select its own chair or chairs, and > for that position to rotate between the stakeholder groups. > > > > In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the role of the > Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder agenda, but to > facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de facto multi-stakeholder > bureau for the IGF that is responsible for facilitating the fulfilment of > the mandate in the Tunis Agenda. > > > > 2 paragraphs above ok with me > > > > 4. How best to organize open consultations? > > > > There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as meetings > held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation from around the > world, but as meetings that are held online, with provision for some > participants to attend in person at a hub in Geneva, or at other hubs. > Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves could come to be considered in the same > terms. > > > > Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation > both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously (ie. through > comments and discussions that are contributed over an extended period > through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on). > > > > It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise an > electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of > asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF > participants as means of contributing to open consultations. In particular, > MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity to online discussions > outside of their closed mailing list, which limits the profile and > accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a whole. > > > > Fully endorse this entire section. > > > > 5. How best to link with regional meetings? > > > > The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the multi-stakeholder > model of Internet governance to a much broader community of Internet users > and citizens, but at the same time we must be careful to ensure that these > meetings meet the same basic process criteria as the IGF itself, including > adequate participation by > > civil society at all levels > > > > In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to > governance processes than governmental and private sector groups, due to > funding constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour. This may require > that additional efforts be made (and funded where appropriate) to ensure > that a plurality of civil society voices are heard in Internet governance > processes. > > > > We also suggest that consideration be given to the principle of > subsidiarity as a guideline for the IGF's relationship with regional and > national IGFs. That is to say that country IGFs should be encouraged to > take up issues at a national level, a regional IGF will subsume all national > concerns in order to build a regional position, and global issues will be > predominantly the concern of the global IGF. > > > > I have problems with any suggestions that institutionalize national as > opposed to transnational regulatory approaches. National governments are > doing just fine, thank you very much; what we are doing here is an attempt > to institutionalize non-national or transnational approaches. Why put so > much emphasis on national? Just refer to "local" or "regional" IGFs. > > > > With such organizational arrangements as proposed above, national reports > would feed into the regional IGFs, and regional reports to the global IGF. > > > > 6. How best to link with international processes and institutions? > > > > Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to bridge > between online and offline discussions, so too there could be rapporteurs > whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at the IGF and to > forward them to external institutions, and to act as a conduit for feedback > from those institutions. > > > > Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and workshops, > since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in the latter. > Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions provided that a > better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops back into main sessions > is realised. > > > > #6 is ok with me, too. > > > > Milton L. Mueller > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > XS4ALL Professor, Technology University of Delft > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Oct 5 13:28:34 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:28:34 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire References: <1C3E37FA-8E30-43E4-9A95-27DD595A056F@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70906DC3677@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0723F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07241@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> This is not true with ICANNs NomCom 2010 which I chaired. We nominated three new faces and did no re-nominate the three sitting directors. w ________________________________ Von: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Gesendet: Di 05.10.2010 19:27 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Cc: Milton L Mueller; Jeremy Malcolm Betreff: Re: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire There was an argument against the idea of an independant nomcom, by Milton, June 12 who said "Nominating committees are just ways for insider groups to perpetuate themselves. We all know this from the ICANN process" Though this comment is harsh, there indeed is some truth in the statement, at least, as a reflection of the political possibility of insider groups perpetuating themselves by filling up nomcom seats, working their way around within the nomcom. If this caution is built into the nomcom design, and checks and balances could be built in, then an ICANN-like nomcom for MAG is a good idea. Sivasubramanian M 2010/10/5 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" I also agree broadly with Jeremies orginal text and Miltons comments. Two additional ideas: Shouldn´t we say something on "output"? And what about an independent "NomCom" to select MAG members? wolfgang ________________________________ Fra: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sendt: ma 04-10-2010 23:41 Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Emne: RE: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire Jeremy Thanks for getting this started and for your work on it. Comments below: 1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions? The IGC broadly supports the continuation of the MAG in its present form I don't think we do. Would propose modification of this language to: The IGC broadly supports the continued existence of a balanced multistakeholder advisory group. In this limited role, the MAG has performed fairly well. How about: "In its current role, the MAG has not been an unmitigated disaster." OK, if that's too harsh, please substitute "reasonably" for "fairly well." Also, don't forget that it's ok for an IGC statement to reflect differing views. So if there is a significant chunk of us who believe the MAG has been fantastic, then describe the spectrum. However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads where it may be called upon to produce more tangible outputs. The qualification of the MAG to steer the IGF through this challenging phase of its evolution is less clear. OK. Two sentences above have my complete support In the past, the MAG has been unwilling to depart too radically from the format of the IGF that was established in Athens. Ideas such as speed dialogues, debates, roundtables and messages from the IGF, although strongly supported in some quarters, have each year failed to progress within the MAG due to a lack of consensus, which has been interpreted as requiring unanimity. Whilst the desire not to mess with a process that is working is laudable, a lack of consensus cannot be used to justify inertia, where the IGF's mandate calls for action. I would delete all the words above, and move directly to the next paragraph, which I have modified: To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, [delete: for] the IGF may require more direct lines of accountability to its constituencies, more balanced sectoral representation, and proactive leadership. [delete: utilising a more flexible conception of "rough consensus" to break through stalemates and propel the IGF towards the complete fulfilment of its mandate.] Reducing the size of the MAG might also improve its effectiveness. Moreover, the MAG does not always interact well with the public forum of its own design - the IGF. I am not sure what you mean by this statement - it might require elaboration MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for multistakeholder comment and participation, in a variety of other institutions, processes and fora, both online and offline. Opening up meetings of the MAG to observers, either face to face or remotely, could also assist in making it more accessible and responsive to the broader community. OK 2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG? As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary for it to become more accountable. Part of this process may involve moving on from the existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary General selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by various parties, pursuant to selection criteria that are not published. Hooray! An alternative approach that many from civil society support is the selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process driven by the stakeholder groups. WIth its existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes, the Internet Governance Caucus could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society MAG representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints. Hooray! Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special privileges that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, and special advisors to the chair, currently possess. If the MAG's processes are opened to broader oversight by the community, such special privileges would soon become redundant. Hooray! 3. How best to nominate the MAG Chair? At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN Secretary-General. This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG develops into a body whose members are self-selected by the stakeholders. In that case, it could be that the MAG should select its own chair or chairs, and for that position to rotate between the stakeholder groups. In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the role of the Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder agenda, but to facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de facto multi-stakeholder bureau for the IGF that is responsible for facilitating the fulfilment of the mandate in the Tunis Agenda. 2 paragraphs above ok with me 4. How best to organize open consultations? There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as meetings held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation from around the world, but as meetings that are held online, with provision for some participants to attend in person at a hub in Geneva, or at other hubs. Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves could come to be considered in the same terms. Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously (ie. through comments and discussions that are contributed over an extended period through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on). It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise an electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF participants as means of contributing to open consultations. In particular, MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity to online discussions outside of their closed mailing list, which limits the profile and accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a whole. Fully endorse this entire section. 5. How best to link with regional meetings? The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance to a much broader community of Internet users and citizens, but at the same time we must be careful to ensure that these meetings meet the same basic process criteria as the IGF itself, including adequate participation by civil society at all levels In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to governance processes than governmental and private sector groups, due to funding constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour. This may require that additional efforts be made (and funded where appropriate) to ensure that a plurality of civil society voices are heard in Internet governance processes. We also suggest that consideration be given to the principle of subsidiarity as a guideline for the IGF's relationship with regional and national IGFs. That is to say that country IGFs should be encouraged to take up issues at a national level, a regional IGF will subsume all national concerns in order to build a regional position, and global issues will be predominantly the concern of the global IGF. I have problems with any suggestions that institutionalize national as opposed to transnational regulatory approaches. National governments are doing just fine, thank you very much; what we are doing here is an attempt to institutionalize non-national or transnational approaches. Why put so much emphasis on national? Just refer to "local" or "regional" IGFs. With such organizational arrangements as proposed above, national reports would feed into the regional IGFs, and regional reports to the global IGF. 6. How best to link with international processes and institutions? Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to bridge between online and offline discussions, so too there could be rapporteurs whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at the IGF and to forward them to external institutions, and to act as a conduit for feedback from those institutions. Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and workshops, since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in the latter. Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions provided that a better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops back into main sessions is realised. #6 is ok with me, too. Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4ALL Professor, Technology University of Delft ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Tue Oct 5 13:42:19 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 23:12:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07241@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1C3E37FA-8E30-43E4-9A95-27DD595A056F@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70906DC3677@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0723F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07241@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: There was a wave of acclamation when Nomcom 2010 announced its results which was a clear acknowledgement of your good work. My quote was non-specific. And, I don't think that Milton used the word 'perpetuate' in such a specific sense. Powerful interests in any political setting have subtle ways of retaining their position (number of apparent seats, a few invisible seats (their men in the seats of the opposite quadrant - for instance a consumer seat filled by an someone with an industry leaning) etc. Such politics perpetuate their overall strength in Governance. Sivasubramanian M 2010/10/5 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > This is not true with ICANNs NomCom 2010 which I chaired. We nominated > three new faces and did no re-nominate the three sitting directors. > > w > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > Gesendet: Di 05.10.2010 19:27 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > Cc: Milton L Mueller; Jeremy Malcolm > Betreff: Re: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire > > > There was an argument against the idea of an independant nomcom, by Milton, > June 12 who said "Nominating committees are just ways for insider groups to > perpetuate themselves. We all know this from the ICANN process" > > > Though this comment is harsh, there indeed is some truth in the statement, > at least, as a reflection of the political possibility of insider groups > perpetuating themselves by filling up nomcom seats, working their way around > within the nomcom. > > > If this caution is built into the nomcom design, and checks and balances > could be built in, then an ICANN-like nomcom for MAG is a good idea. > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > > 2010/10/5 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > > > I also agree broadly with Jeremies orginal text and Miltons > comments. > > Two additional ideas: Shouldn´t we say something on "output"? And > what about an independent "NomCom" to select MAG members? > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Fra: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sendt: ma 04-10-2010 23:41 > Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm' > Emne: RE: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire > > > > > Jeremy > > Thanks for getting this started and for your work on it. Comments > below: > > > > 1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out > in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions? > > > > The IGC broadly supports the continuation of the MAG in its present > form > > > > I don't think we do. Would propose modification of this language to: > > > > The IGC broadly supports the continued existence of a balanced > multistakeholder advisory group. > > > > In this limited role, the MAG has performed fairly well. > > > > > > How about: "In its current role, the MAG has not been an unmitigated > disaster." > > OK, if that's too harsh, please substitute "reasonably" for "fairly > well." > > Also, don't forget that it's ok for an IGC statement to reflect > differing views. So if there is a significant chunk of us who believe the > MAG has been fantastic, then describe the spectrum. > > > > However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads where it may be called > upon to produce more tangible outputs. The qualification of the MAG to > steer the IGF through this challenging phase of its evolution is less clear. > > > > OK. Two sentences above have my complete support > > > > In the past, the MAG has been unwilling to depart too radically from > the format of the IGF that was established in Athens. Ideas such as speed > dialogues, debates, roundtables and messages from the IGF, although strongly > supported in some quarters, have each year failed to progress within the MAG > due to a lack of consensus, which has been interpreted as requiring > unanimity. > > Whilst the desire not to mess with a process that is working is > laudable, a lack of consensus cannot be used to justify inertia, where the > IGF's mandate calls for action. > > > > I would delete all the words above, and move directly to the next > paragraph, which I have modified: > > > > To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, [delete: > for] the IGF may require more direct lines of accountability to its > constituencies, more balanced sectoral representation, and proactive > leadership. [delete: utilising a more flexible conception of "rough > consensus" to break through stalemates and propel the IGF towards the > complete fulfilment of its mandate.] Reducing the size of the MAG might > also improve its effectiveness. > > > > Moreover, the MAG does not always interact well with the public > forum of its own design - the IGF. > > > > I am not sure what you mean by this statement - it might require > elaboration > > > > MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for > multistakeholder comment and participation, in a variety of other > institutions, processes and fora, both online and offline. Opening up > meetings of the MAG to observers, either face to face or remotely, could > also assist in making it more accessible and responsive to the broader > community. > > > > OK > > > > 2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG? > > > > As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary > for it to become more accountable. Part of this process may involve moving > on from the > > existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary > General selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by various > parties, pursuant to selection criteria that are not published. > > > > Hooray! > > > > An alternative approach that many from civil society support is the > selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process driven by the > stakeholder groups. WIth its existing open, accountable, transparent and > democratic processes, the Internet Governance Caucus could form the > foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society MAG > representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and > gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints. > > > > Hooray! > > > > Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special > privileges that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, and > special advisors to the chair, currently possess. If the MAG's processes > are opened to broader oversight by the community, such special privileges > would soon become redundant. > > > > Hooray! > > > > 3. How best to nominate the MAG Chair? > > > > At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN > Secretary-General. This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG develops > into a body whose members are self-selected by the stakeholders. In that > case, it could be that the MAG should select its own chair or chairs, and > for that position to rotate between the stakeholder groups. > > > > In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the role > of the Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder agenda, but to > facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de facto multi-stakeholder > bureau for the IGF that is responsible for facilitating the fulfilment of > the mandate in the Tunis Agenda. > > > > 2 paragraphs above ok with me > > > > 4. How best to organize open consultations? > > > > There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as > meetings held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation from around > the world, but as meetings that are held online, with provision for some > participants to attend in person at a hub in Geneva, or at other hubs. > Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves could come to be considered in the same > terms. > > > > Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for > participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously (ie. > through comments and discussions that are contributed over an extended > period through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on). > > > > It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise > an electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of > asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF > participants as means of contributing to open consultations. In particular, > MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity to online discussions > outside of their closed mailing list, which limits the profile and > accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a whole. > > > > Fully endorse this entire section. > > > > 5. How best to link with regional meetings? > > > > The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the > multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance to a much broader community > of Internet users and citizens, but at the same time we must be careful to > ensure that these meetings meet the same basic process criteria as the IGF > itself, including adequate participation by > > civil society at all levels > > > > In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to > governance processes than governmental and private sector groups, due to > funding constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour. This may require > that additional efforts be made (and funded where appropriate) to ensure > that a plurality of civil society voices are heard in Internet governance > processes. > > > > We also suggest that consideration be given to the principle of > subsidiarity as a guideline for the IGF's relationship with regional and > national IGFs. That is to say that country IGFs should be encouraged to > take up issues at a national level, a regional IGF will subsume all national > concerns in order to build a regional position, and global issues will be > predominantly the concern of the global IGF. > > > > I have problems with any suggestions that institutionalize national > as opposed to transnational regulatory approaches. National governments are > doing just fine, thank you very much; what we are doing here is an attempt > to institutionalize non-national or transnational approaches. Why put so > much emphasis on national? Just refer to "local" or "regional" IGFs. > > > > With such organizational arrangements as proposed above, national > reports would feed into the regional IGFs, and regional reports to the > global IGF. > > > > 6. How best to link with international processes and institutions? > > > > Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to > bridge between online and offline discussions, so too there could be > rapporteurs whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at the > IGF and to forward them to external institutions, and to act as a conduit > for feedback from those institutions. > > > > Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and > workshops, since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in > the latter. Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions > provided that a better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops back > into main sessions is realised. > > > > #6 is ok with me, too. > > > > Milton L. Mueller > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > XS4ALL Professor, Technology University of Delft > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Tue Oct 5 15:21:50 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 00:51:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <4C9DE370.9040108@gmail.com> <4CA1EAA8.20007@gih.com> Message-ID: Hello, We organized a hub at Chennai, which was initially meant to be a small room for 30 people sponsored by GreatLakes Institute of Managment, but after we met with the management of this School of Management, they committed a lot more resources - made available a world class Smart Classroom for 60 participants, ample bandwidth, a large auditorium for 300 for occasional meetings, transportation facilities for participants from the city, and as many rooms as we wanted for those who chose to stay. This is a very serious business school with an amazingly loaded time-table that kept students occupied at least until midnight seven days a week, but still class room were realigned to accommodate participation. Over a hundred students took turns to participate in the various sessions. http://isocmadras.blogspot.com/2010/09/igf-remote-participation-hub-at-great.html This was also an occasion to invite youth participation in the IGF: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com/2010/09/youth-participation-in-internet.html The Isoc Chennai hub at GreatLakes http://greatlakes.edu.in/ is an experiment which indicates that academic Institutions can play a pivotal role in enhancing youth participation in Internet Governance. It felt good to be with the students who organized and took part in the IGF hub. Those working on improving youth participation may draw the attention of academic institutions to the role of GreatLakes in facilitating the Chennai hub. Sivasubramanian M http://turiya.co.in http://www.isocmadras.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Tim Davies < tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk> wrote: > This highlights a useful distinction to think about when planning > developments of Remote Participation: how much development of RP should > focus on technical development - and how much on developing the facilitation > process and the skills/awareness of remote participation amongst panellists > and participants. > > (E.g. We tried to get a information sheet on the online social reporting > process into the delegate bags this year... and trying to do similar with a > one-page description of Remote Participation and how people physically in > the room can best support effective RP in delegates packs for IGF11 / > information on posters outside rooms... may go a long way to helping the > process - as right now often physical participants are unaware of what RP is > / is like.) > > I get the sense a big part of effective RP this year was about having > skilled and engaged facilitators at both ends of the connection... and > continuing to develop the role of these facilitators may be a worthwhile > area to think about. > > Tim > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> The facilities made available for remote participation were amazing: >> video and real time transcripts from every room a great achievement. >> >> During security, openness, privacy session Kieren did a very good job of >> bringing in the remote hubs and also telling us of how many people were >> there in a particular place: 44 people in Dhaka, naming the hubs that were >> following and chatting. Gave a good sense that we weren't alone in the room, >> the hubs started to became a real people rather than something off in the >> ether. >> >> Suggest next time each of the hubs and moderators are encouraged to find >> out who is online, how many, where are they. Make them more real. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> Olivier's well documented challenges here are quite real. >>> >>> Not wanting to simplify the problem too much ... but it might be useful >>> to break this down to its most fundamental. To me, from both a technical and >>> business view, it appears to be a matter of perspective and priority. >>> >>> For this to really work and for the technicians to fully "get" what the >>> objectives are, each IGF Workshop or Event should, in fact, >>> be philosophically treated as an old school "Webinar", in a manner of >>> speaking, as opposed to a dealing with it as an in situ event/workshop with >>> Remote Participants being seen as the "outsiders". >>> >>> I expect that if we adopt this perspective then the most basic issues of >>> how to best wire the PA systems, how remote participants engage with the >>> Event as equals (for eg. simple things as whether the presentation being >>> viewed in situ is the identical to and moves at the same speed as the one in >>> the possession of the Remote Moderation "hat") will actually be resolved >>> relatively easily ... putting the more logistical issues of bandwidth, >>> delays, acoustics etc. aside for the moment. >>> >>> Of course, having the actual architects/engineers of the Remote >>> Participation technology engaged at all stages (including in situ) will also >>> be more than useful. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Tracy >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > > > http://www.timdavies.org.uk > 07834 856 303. > @timdavies > > Co-director of Practical Participation: > http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk > -------------------------- > Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - > #5381958. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Tue Oct 5 21:57:02 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 09:57:02 +0800 Subject: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: <1C3E37FA-8E30-43E4-9A95-27DD595A056F@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70906DC3677@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01978B0F1E@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <9013243F-3258-46A5-A7BA-61943741AA97@marzouki.info> Message-ID: <97EFB1D4-FEA0-4742-ACA3-02F8D39F1661@ciroap.org> On 06/10/2010, at 12:10 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Thank you Jeremy for kicking off this important collaborative work. > And I also largely agree with Milton, > Wolfgang, and other interventions. > > I find one important element not spelled out, however, > that is the "development" orientation. I am not sure where best to insert, yet. I agree that this is very important, but perhaps can be more conveniently included in one of our next two submissions: we will shortly have one to the CSTD review of the IGF, and another on Enhanced Cooperation to UNDESA. The MAG questionnaire doesn't directly throw up issues of the development orientation, but is more about process. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 6 00:05:11 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 09:35:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <97EFB1D4-FEA0-4742-ACA3-02F8D39F1661@ciroap.org> References: <1C3E37FA-8E30-43E4-9A95-27DD595A056F@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70906DC3677@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01978B0F1E@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <9013243F-3258-46A5-A7BA-61943741AA97@marzouki.info> <97EFB1D4-FEA0-4742-ACA3-02F8D39F1661@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4CABF577.1020300@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 06 October 2010 07:27 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I agree that this is very important, but perhaps can be more conveniently included in one of our next two submissions: we will shortly have one to the CSTD review of the IGF, and another on Enhanced Cooperation to UNDESA. The MAG questionnaire doesn't directly throw up issues of the development orientation, but is more about process. > The development dimension to MAG will be that MAG takes on enough members that represent development constituencies and marginalized groups (becuase it is highly unlikely that the really marginalised groups - the really poor, the most discriminated against women, the most excluded disabled - will themselves ever be taken on the MAG). These constituencies can only be represented through organized groups working with and for them. I see very little, if any, representation of such groups in the MAG, or in general in the IGF, or even more generally in IG spaces, which is a key concern. Also we can specifically ask that MAG that when it prepares the IGF's agenda, and priortises issues, it should prioritise issues which directly concern the interests of these marginalized groups, and this is important, and mostly neglected at present, as they and those working with them see these issues, and not from-the-top experts, often technical experts. I was more than a bit shocked with the kind of extra-ordinarily interpretations that some panel speakers in the IG for development session were giving to the concept and practise of development - things like IG for development must be about development of the Internet (!!!!!) , and that when we speak about development we should speak about development in the North and the South together, in the same vein, quite unmindful of the deep structural issues that characterise 'the development situation' in the South. One should recognize that poverty and development are not synonymous, and the latter refers to some specific, through broad, historical social conditions and structures. 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 Wed Oct 6 00:04:26 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 12:04:26 +0800 Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT response to MAG questionnaire Message-ID: Please find below a second draft, incorporating comments to date. I'm not sure what people would like to see added on "outputs". I've just added a bit to the last question on this. 1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions? The IGC broadly supports the continuation of a balanced multistakeholder advisory group. In its current role, the MAG has performed reasonably. However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads where it may be called upon to produce more tangible outputs. The qualification of the MAG to steer the IGF through this challenging phase of its evolution is less clear. We would like the MAG to play an active role in any possible improvements towards a greater outcome orientation that may be suggested by the ongoing IGF improvement process. Since there is no other clear body or structure in and of the IGF, any possible suggestions for improvements like inter-sessional work, choosing of key issues for more focussed work, working groups on issues, background papers etc will require the MAG to play an important part. To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, the IGF may require more direct lines of accountability to its constituencies, more balanced sectoral representation, and proactive leadership. Reducing the size of the MAG might also improve its effectiveness. Moreover, MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for multistakeholder comment and participation, in a variety of other institutions, processes and fora, both online and offline. Opening up meetings of the MAG to observers, either face to face or remotely, could also assist in making it more accessible and responsive to the broader community. 2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG? As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary for it to become more accountable. Part of this process may involve moving on from the existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary General selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by various parties, pursuant to selection criteria that are not published. An alternative approach that many from civil society support is the selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process driven by the stakeholder groups. WIth its existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes, the Internet Governance Caucus could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society MAG representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints. This could be done through an independent nominating committee, though there is some division within civil society on that question. Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special privileges that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, and special advisors to the chair, currently possess. If the MAG's processes are opened to broader oversight by the community, such special privileges would soon become redundant. 3. How best to nominate the MAG Chair? At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN Secretary-General. This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG develops into a body whose members are self-selected by the stakeholders. In that case, it could be that the MAG should select its own chair or chairs, and for that position to rotate between the stakeholder groups. In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the role of the Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder agenda, but to facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de facto multi-stakeholder bureau for the IGF that is responsible for facilitating the fulfilment of the mandate in the Tunis Agenda. 4. How best to organize open consultations? There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as meetings held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation from around the world, but as meetings that are held online, with provision for some participants to attend in person at a hub in Geneva, or at other hubs. Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves could come to be considered in the same terms. Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously (ie. through comments and discussions that are contributed over an extended period through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on). It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise an electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF participants as means of contributing to open consultations. In particular, MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity to online discussions outside of their closed mailing list, which limits the profile and accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a whole. 5. How best to link with regional meetings? The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance to a much broader community of Internet users and citizens, but at the same time we must be careful to ensure that these meetings meet the same basic process criteria as the IGF itself, including adequate participation by civil society at all levels. In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to governance processes than governmental and private sector groups, due to funding constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour. This may require that additional efforts be made (and funded where appropriate) to ensure that a plurality of civil society voices are heard in Internet governance processes. We also suggest that consideration be given to the principle of subsidiarity as a guideline for the IGF's relationship with regional IGFs. That is to say that a regional IGF will subsume all national concerns in order to build a regional position, and global issues will be predominantly the concern of the global IGF. 6. How best to link with international processes and institutions? Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to bridge between online and offline discussions, so too there could be rapporteurs whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at the IGF and to forward them to external institutions, and to act as a conduit for feedback from those institutions. Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and workshops, since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in the latter. Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions provided that a better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops back into main sessions is realised. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Oct 6 00:06:37 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 12:06:37 +0800 Subject: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <4CABF577.1020300@itforchange.net> References: <1C3E37FA-8E30-43E4-9A95-27DD595A056F@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70906DC3677@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01978B0F1E@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <9013243F-3258-46A5-A7BA-61943741AA97@marzouki.info> <97EFB1D4-FEA0-4742-ACA3-02F8D39F1661@ciroap.org> <4CABF577.1020300@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <740B4AC0-9D54-41DF-9672-75AD42CAC2D4@ciroap.org> Sorry, this message crossed with my second draft, but these suggestions will be taken into account for the third draft. On 06/10/2010, at 12:05 PM, parminder wrote: > The development dimension to MAG will be that MAG takes on enough members that represent development constituencies and marginalized groups (becuase it is highly unlikely that the really marginalised groups - the really poor, the most discriminated against women, the most excluded disabled - will themselves ever be taken on the MAG). These constituencies can only be represented through organized groups working with and for them. I see very little, if any, representation of such groups in the MAG, or in general in the IGF, or even more generally in IG spaces, which is a key concern. > > Also we can specifically ask that MAG that when it prepares the IGF's agenda, and priortises issues, it should prioritise issues which directly concern the interests of these marginalized groups, and this is important, and mostly neglected at present, as they and those working with them see these issues, and not from-the-top experts, often technical experts. > > I was more than a bit shocked with the kind of extra-ordinarily interpretations that some panel speakers in the IG for development session were giving to the concept and practise of development - things like IG for development must be about development of the Internet (!!!!!) , and that when we speak about development we should speak about development in the North and the South together, in the same vein, quite unmindful of the deep structural issues that characterise 'the development situation' in the South. One should recognize that poverty and development are not synonymous, and the latter refers to some specific, through broad, historical social conditions and structures. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Oct 6 01:30:42 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 17:30:42 +1200 Subject: [governance] [Press Statements] - New initiative to exchange solutions across the Pacific launched In-Reply-To: <469D55E0A215504CAE38D09D178E5F3D2EC2697727@MAILBOX.tfl.internal> References: <22175821.54751286338506910.JavaMail.68-168-96-64$@68-168-96-64> <469D55E0A215504CAE38D09D178E5F3D2EC2697727@MAILBOX.tfl.internal> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 5:26 PM Subject: FW: [Press Statements] - New initiative to exchange solutions across the Pacific launched To: "salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com" < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> ________________________________ From: Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat [ebulletin at forumsec.org.fj] Sent: Wednesday, 6 October 2010 4:15 PM To: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Subject: [Press Statements] - New initiative to exchange solutions across the Pacific launched Latest Press Statement 05 October 2010 New initiative to exchange solutions across the Pacific launched Press Release(/10) 6th October 2010 Practitioners across the Pacific and abroad will now have the opportunity to connect with, share and learn from each other on how to better address development needs with the launch today of the Pacific Solution Exchange Development Effectiveness Community (PSE_DEC). The PSE_DEC is a facilitated knowledge service initiated by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in partnership with the Pacific Island Forum Secretariat (PIFS), Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the University of the South Pacific (USP). “Through this partnership, the PSE_DEC aims to strengthen coordination and cooperation for improved development effectiveness and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in the region,”, said Mr Knut Ostby, UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative. He added: “The UN brings to the discussions global experience and expertise, however, we recognize that it is the people and the national institutions themselves who will lead the development process.” The knowledge service, launched today draws together a broad range of stakeholders from government, civil society, private sector, academia, regional organizations and development partners to share experiences and seek their views via a facilitated mail group on development topics specific to the Pacific, like climate change resourcing, addressing the needs of the poor and the vulnerable, and achieving the MDGs. The establishment of the PSE_DEC follows discussions at the Pacific Regional Aid Effectiveness Workshop and the Pacific Partners (PIC Partners) Meeting held in June 2010 in Nadi, Fiji. Secretary General of the Pacific Island Forum Secretariat, Tuiloma Neroni Slade envisages that the facilitated community will become a mechanism for knowledge sharing and a coordination tool for sharing lessons and exchanging solutions. “It could also be used to share findings from the Cairns Compact processes such as the peer review of countries’ national plans. Forum Member countries that indicated interest at the meeting include the Marshall Islands, Palau, Nauru, Tonga, Tuvalu, Samoa and Vanuatu,” said Mr Slade. Offering further support for the initiative, ADB's Regional Director, Keith Leonard said: “This initiative has the potential to act as a cost-effective platform to improve the frequency and timeliness of knowledge sharing among Pacific practitioners." The Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of the South Pacific, Professor Rajesh Chandra, further stated that the “Pacific Solution Exchange will enable development practitioners to discuss and debate substantive issues in an informative environment, outside the usual parameters of meetings and conferences. It should encourage a steady flow of ideas and solutions for the issues that are most timely in the Pacific.” Commencing with a six-month trial phase based on UNDP’s proven methodology known as Solution Exchange, members will be engaged in e-discussions via email supported by a team of facilitators. The approach is hoped to initially help members to better share their views and opinions. Based on the feedback from the trial, the Community’s services could then be extended to allow members to ask queries and help each other by sharing knowledge and experience around common development challenges. UNDP Deputy Resident Representative, Toily Kurbanov added, “There is a lot of knowledge in the Pacific as to what type of solutions to complex development issues work best in the island countries context. However that knowledge is diffused across islands, as well as across government agencies, civil society and development partners. Pacific Solutions Exchange will leverage new technologies to bring that knowledge together and to nurture communities of practice.” To join or find out more about the Pacific Solution Exchange Development Effectiveness Community, please go to www.solutionexchange-un.net/pacific. [ENDS] Contact Person for further details: Jessica Robbins, Pacific Solution Exchange Coordinator on +679 330399 or email pse.facilitationteam at undp.org Read this online< http://www.forumsec.org/pages.cfm/newsroom/press-statements/2010/new-initiative-to-exchange-solutions-across-pacific-launched.html > You are receiving this because you subscribed to e-bulletin on our website www.forumsec.org. If you wish to unsubscribe, you can visit our home page< http://www.forumsec.org/> and simply add your email to the 'UnSubscribe' text box under 'Subscribe to our e-bulletins' box Home | Sitemap< http://www.forumsec.org/sitemap.cfm/> | Contact Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat Copyright & Disclaimer -- Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro P.O.Box 17862 Suva Fiji Islands Cell: +679 9982851 Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj "Wisdom is far better than riches." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Oct 6 02:22:38 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 08:22:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Introduction References: <22175821.54751286338506910.JavaMail.68-168-96-64$@68-168-96-64> <469D55E0A215504CAE38D09D178E5F3D2EC2697727@MAILBOX.tfl.internal> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07243@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> I want to introduce Walid al Saqaf, a PhD student from the University of Oerebro. I met him in a PhD course in Denmark these days. He is a technical expert and has developed a software which helps to bypass censorship. He is looking for contacts among civil society, in particular with regard related policies and regulation. Probably Robert Guerra would interested to discuss with hin. 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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Oct 6 02:25:18 2010 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 15:25:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] Introduction In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07243@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <22175821.54751286338506910.JavaMail.68-168-96-64$@68-168-96-64> <469D55E0A215504CAE38D09D178E5F3D2EC2697727@MAILBOX.tfl.internal> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07243@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Walid is the guy behind a circumvention tool called Alkasir and also a TED fellow :) Rafik 2010/10/6 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > I want to introduce Walid al Saqaf, a PhD student from the University of > Oerebro. I met him in a PhD course in Denmark these days. He is a technical > expert and has developed a software which helps to bypass censorship. He is > looking for contacts among civil society, in particular with regard related > policies and regulation. Probably Robert Guerra would interested to discuss > with hin. > > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 6 03:31:59 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 13:01:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CAC25EF.8040806@itforchange.net> Jeremy thanks for this *******"We also suggest that consideration be given to the principle of subsidiarity as a guideline for the IGF's relationship with regional IGFs. That is to say that a regional IGF will subsume all national concerns in order to build a regional position, and global issues will be predominantly the concern of the global IGF.*******" I am still opposed to mentioning the principle of subsidiarity, even if you have removed 'national' and only retained 'regional'. This principle would mean nothing should be taken up and done by the IGF which can 'effectively' (and the judgment of effectiveness will remain open) be done by a regional IGF. One may say that since human rights concern real human situation, and someone may add cultural contexts as an issue to this, they are best taken up by national and regional IGF and the global IGF only deals with issues which specifically concern the whole world at once. In any case, as you may know, many regional/ national IGFs are held by bodies and group of actors who are self-appointed to do so.... Asian IGF was held by a small group of Hong Kong based actors/ groups who self-selected themselves to do so (which, as validly IT for Change and some other Bangalore based organizations could possible have done, if, alas, we had the money) , and even the US IGF I understand is held largely by some industry groups. Do you want to dissipate the legitimacy of the global IGF through yielding it to these efforts, which often have questionable legitimacies? On the question ****6. How best to link with international processes and institutions?**** I think we need to propose ways beyond ensuring circulation of information. We should ask for real policy related engagements, whereby the IGF is able to give recs to these institutions in their area of policy making competence, and these other institutions are encouraged to bring policy issues on which they will like to have a larger debate/ dialogue to the IGF, and the IGF then reverts back on outcomes of the discussion/ dialogue. I also read some such intention in the Tunis Agenda para on IGF mandate. Parminder On Wednesday 06 October 2010 09:34 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Please find below a second draft, incorporating comments to date. I'm > not sure what people would like to see added on "outputs". I've just > added a bit to the last question on this. > > *1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out > in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions?* > * > * > The IGC broadly supports the continuation of a balanced > multistakeholder advisory group. In its current role, the MAG has > performed reasonably. However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads > where it may be called upon to produce more tangible outputs. The > qualification of the MAG to steer the IGF through this challenging > phase of its evolution is less clear. > > * > We would like the MAG to play an active role in any possible > improvements towards a greater outcome orientation that may be > suggested by the ongoing IGF improvement process. Since there is no > other clear body or structure in and of the IGF, any possible > suggestions for improvements like inter-sessional work, choosing of > key issues for more focussed work, working groups on > issues, background papers etc will require the MAG to play an > important part. > * > * > > * > To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, the IGF may > require more direct lines of accountability to its constituencies, > more balanced sectoral representation, and proactive leadership. > Reducing the size of the MAG might also improve its effectiveness. > * > * > *Moreover, MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for > multistakeholder comment and participation, in a variety of other > institutions, processes and fora, both online and offline. Opening up > meetings of the MAG to *observers, either face to face or remotely, > could also assist in making it more accessible and responsive to the > broader community. > * > * > **2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG?** > * > * > * > As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary for > it to become more accountable. Part of this process may involve > moving on from the * > * > existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary > General selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by > various parties, pursuant to selection criteria that are not published. > * > * > > An alternative approach that many from civil society * > * > support > * > ** > is the selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process > driven by the stakeholder groups. WIth its existing open, > accountable, transparent and democratic processes, the Internet > Governance Caucus could form the foundation of an appropriate body to > select civil society MAG representatives, subject to appropriate > criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of > viewpoints. This could be done through an independent nominating > committee, though there is some division within civil society on that > question. > * > > * > Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special > privileges that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, > and special advisors to the chair, currently possess. If the MAG's > processes are opened to broader oversight by the community, such > special privileges would soon become redundant. > * > * > > * > * > *3. ***How best to nominate the MAG Chair?** > * > * > * > At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN > Secretary-General. This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG > develops into a body whose members are self-selected by the > stakeholders. In that case, it could be that the MAG should select > its own chair or chairs, and for that position to rotate between the > stakeholder groups. > > * > In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the role > of the Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder agenda, > but to facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de facto > multi-stakeholder bureau for the IGF that is responsible for > facilitating the fulfilment of the mandate in the Tunis Agenda. > * > * > **4. How best to organize open consultations?** > ** > ** > There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as > meetings held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation from > around the world, but as meetings that are held online, with provision > for some participants to attend in person at a hub in Geneva, or at > other hubs. Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves could come to be > considered in the same terms. > > Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for > participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously > (ie. through comments and discussions that are contributed over an > extended period through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so > on). > > It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise an > electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of > asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF > participants as means of contributing to open consultations. In > particular, MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity to > online discussions outside of their closed mailing list, which limits > the profile and accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a whole. > ** > ** > ***5. How best to link with regional meetings?* > ** > *** > *** > *** > *** > The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the > multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance to a much broader > community of Internet users and citizens, but at the same time we must > be careful to ensure that these meetings meet the same basic process > criteria as the IGF itself, including adequate participation by *** > *** > *** > *** > civil society at all levels > *** > *** > *** > ****** > *** > . > *** > *** > > In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to > governance processes than governmental and private sector groups, due > to funding constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour. This may > require that additional efforts be made (and funded where appropriate) > to ensure that a plurality of civil society voices are heard in > Internet governance processes. > > We also suggest that consideration be given to the principle of > subsidiarity as a guideline for the IGF's relationship with regional > IGFs. That is to say that a regional IGF will subsume all national > concerns in order to build a regional position, and global issues will > be predominantly the concern of the global IGF. > > *** > *** > ****6. How best to link with international processes and institutions?**** > *** > *** > *Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to bridge > between online and offline discussions, so too there could be > rapporteurs whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at > the IGF and to forward them to external institutions, and to act as a > conduit for feedback from those institutions. > > Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and > workshops, since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes > place in the latter. Alternatively, they could be limited to the main > sessions provided that a better mechanism for feeding the output of > workshops back into main sessions is realised. > * > > -- > > *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 Wed Oct 6 04:10:13 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 16:10:13 +0800 Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <4CAC25EF.8040806@itforchange.net> References: <4CAC25EF.8040806@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 06/10/2010, at 3:31 PM, parminder wrote: > On the question 6. How best to link with international processes and institutions? > > I think we need to propose ways beyond ensuring circulation of information. We should ask for real policy related engagements, whereby the IGF is able to give recs to these institutions in their area of policy making competence, and these other institutions are encouraged to bring policy issues on which they will like to have a larger debate/ dialogue to the IGF, and the IGF then reverts back on outcomes of the discussion/ dialogue. I also read some such intention in the Tunis Agenda para on IGF mandate. You'll note that at the top of my email I claimed that I had added new text to the answer to question 6 about this, but in fact I had accidentally omitted it and the text was identical to the first draft. Here is what I had intended to add, based on suggested text from July, but you may have something better to contribute. "In either case, such summaries transmitted from the IGF need not take the form of recommendations (though in the rare event that a rough consensus had been reached on a particular issue, there is no reason why they couldn't take that form). A emerging model for this process is found in the "messages" or "recommendations" produced by national IGFs such IGF-D (Deutschland), and regional IGFs such as the East African IGF and EURODIG. Ideally this would become a two-way process in which the institutions addressed could also turn to the IGF with issues they wished the IGF to address through multi-stakeholder dialogue." Also, point noted on the subsidiarity issue. I'll remove that from the next version, unless others wish to speak up with a compelling counter-argument (Baudouin, perhaps? - that text was loosely based on your comments). -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Oct 5 09:14:29 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 14:14:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] ARIN and remote participation In-Reply-To: References: <20101002121420.767C216514E@smtp1.arin.net> <1D4FC13E-4486-44A0-B615-146C537AEBEE@acm.org> Message-ID: <8AnWJOB1SyqMFAMH@perry.co.uk> In message , at 06:40:48 on Sun, 3 Oct 2010, Avri Doria writes >ps. wish there was info like this I could forward on the >ITU: Plenipotentiary Conference 2010 4-22 October. There seem to be some audio/webcasts here: http://www.itu.int/plenipotentiary/2010/newsroom/webcast/ but no arrangements for members (or non-members) to interact remotely. -- 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 shahzad at bytesforall.net Wed Oct 6 08:55:25 2010 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 17:55:25 +0500 Subject: [governance] Introduction In-Reply-To: References: <22175821.54751286338506910.JavaMail.68-168-96-64$@68-168-96-64> <469D55E0A215504CAE38D09D178E5F3D2EC2697727@MAILBOX.tfl.internal> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07243@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <000001cb6555$c5d50a50$517f1ef0$@net> …and many of us met him in Budapest J Best wishes Shahzad From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 11:25 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Cc: admin at alkasir.com Subject: Re: [governance] Introduction Walid is the guy behind a circumvention tool called Alkasir and also a TED fellow :) Rafik 2010/10/6 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" I want to introduce Walid al Saqaf, a PhD student from the University of Oerebro. I met him in a PhD course in Denmark these days. He is a technical expert and has developed a software which helps to bypass censorship. He is looking for contacts among civil society, in particular with regard related policies and regulation. Probably Robert Guerra would interested to discuss with hin. 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 Wed Oct 6 09:47:12 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 18:47:12 +0500 Subject: [governance] Introduction In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07243@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <22175821.54751286338506910.JavaMail.68-168-96-64$@68-168-96-64> <469D55E0A215504CAE38D09D178E5F3D2EC2697727@MAILBOX.tfl.internal> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07243@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: He is definitely a person that needs no introduction! Great to have him join IGC! Welcome on board IGC Walid! -- Best Fouad Bajwa 2010/10/6 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" : > I want to introduce Walid al Saqaf, a PhD student from the University of Oerebro. I met him in a PhD course in Denmark these days. He is a technical expert and has developed a software which helps to bypass censorship. He is looking for contacts among civil society, in particular with regard related policies and regulation. Probably Robert Guerra would interested to discuss with hin. > > 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 hcreech at iisd.ca Wed Oct 6 11:58:31 2010 From: hcreech at iisd.ca (Heather Creech) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 15:58:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] IISD comment on the draft Message-ID: <74F140BC0E0AB841BC9FA7D27E55CACB09229BE1@PROTON.iisd.ca> I want to raise concern about one specific point in the draft, which falls under question 2. This concerns the relationship between the IGC, civil society concerned with internet governance / the IGF, and civil society in general. The draft suggests that: "With its existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes, the Internet Governance Caucus could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society MAG representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints." It adds that this could also be achieved through an independent NomCom process. The IGC could not take on a representative role of this kind in its present form, and should not seek to do so (although a NomCom process may be feasible). Three main reasons: a. The IGC charter requires members to be individuals, acting in a personal capacity, and does not enable organisational participation. In the world at large, including every other area of public policy which is affected by the internet, civil society engages predominantly through organisations (development agencies, rights agencies, environmental agencies, consumer bodies, faith groups, trades unions, women's organisations etc.). While it is certainly not a problem for the IGC to require individual (and exclude organisational) participation in its own activities, this is a problem if it seeks to represent civil society in general. b. The IGC is an actor within civil society in relation to internet governance / the IGF. It is not civil society per se, nor can it claim to represent civil society as a whole, either within the internet community or (even more so) beyond. There are many civil society participants in IG and in the IGF who do not participate in the IGC. There are many civil society actors (individuals and organisations) whose activities/work/lives are greatly impacted by the internet that do not participate in IG or the IGF. They cannot be represented by the IGC unless they choose to be so represented - and they may not be in a position to make that choice. c) The IGC should not seek to use some kind of institutional status within the IGF as a way of leveraging non-members into membership of the IGC. The participation of civil society actors in UN or multistakeholder processes (and the MAG is both) should not be contingent on or routed through a specific membership body (in this case the IGC). (To make an analogy: would IGC members accept that their engagement with, say, human rights or environmental issues must be contingent on participation in Human Rights Watch or IISD?) In short, the IGC should continue to do what it does well, which is to act as the voice of those who choose to be its members. It should not seek to speak for those who are not part of it or to act as a gateway for their participation in a multistakeholder process such as the selection of the MAG. An independent NomCom process which engaged with civil society in general may be worth exploring. However, for the reasons given above, this also should not be a function of the IGC but would need to engage a much wider range of civil society participation. Heather Creech Director, Global Connectivity IISD +12049587735 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 6 16:33:29 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 22:33:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] IISD comment on the draft In-Reply-To: <74F140BC0E0AB841BC9FA7D27E55CACB09229BE1@PROTON.iisd.ca> References: <74F140BC0E0AB841BC9FA7D27E55CACB09229BE1@PROTON.iisd.ca> Message-ID: <4CACDD19.7020703@wzb.eu> Hi, I agree with Heather's comments. If it is our goal to broaden civil society participation in the IGF and its preparatory structures, the caucus should not aim to form the gateway to bodies such as the MAG. Rather it should delegate selection or recruitment processes to an independent organization with a broader membership which covers a more diverse set of issues. The IGC is not well known enough beyond its rather narrow home turf. CoNGO might be a good candidate for such a role? jeanette On 06.10.2010 17:58, Heather Creech wrote: > > > I want to raise concern about one specific point in the draft, which > falls under question 2. This concerns the relationship between the IGC, > civil society concerned with internet governance / the IGF, and civil > society in general. > > The draft suggests that: "With its existing open, accountable, > transparent and democratic processes, the Internet Governance Caucus > could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society > MAG representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional > and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints." It adds that this > could also be achieved through an independent NomCom process. > > The IGC could not take on a representative role of this kind in its > present form, and should not seek to do so (although a NomCom process > may be feasible). Three main reasons: > > a. The IGC charter requires members to be individuals, acting in a > personal capacity, and does not enable organisational participation. In > the world at large, including every other area of public policy which is > affected by the internet, civil society engages predominantly through > organisations (development agencies, rights agencies, environmental > agencies, consumer bodies, faith groups, trades unions, women's > organisations etc.). While it is certainly not a problem for the IGC to > require individual (and exclude organisational) participation in its own > activities, this is a problem if it seeks to represent civil society in > general. > > b. The IGC is an actor within civil society in relation to internet > governance / the IGF. It is not civil society per se, nor can it claim > to represent civil society as a whole, either within the internet > community or (even more so) beyond. There are many civil society > participants in IG and in the IGF who do not participate in the IGC. > There are many civil society actors (individuals and organisations) > whose activities/work/lives are greatly impacted by the internet that do > not participate in IG or the IGF. They cannot be represented by the IGC > unless they choose to be so represented – and they may not be in a > position to make that choice. > > c) The IGC should not seek to use some kind of institutional status > within the IGF as a way of leveraging non-members into membership of the > IGC. The participation of civil society actors in UN or multistakeholder > processes (and the MAG is both) should not be contingent on or routed > through a specific membership body (in this case the IGC). (To make an > analogy: would IGC members accept that their engagement with, say, human > rights or environmental issues must be contingent on participation in > Human Rights Watch or IISD?) > > In short, the IGC should continue to do what it does well, which is to > act as the voice of those who choose to be its members. It should not > seek to speak for those who are not part of it or to act as a gateway > for their participation in a multistakeholder process such as the > selection of the MAG. An independent NomCom process which engaged with > civil society in general may be worth exploring. However, for the > reasons given above, this also should not be a function of the IGC but > would need to engage a much wider range of civil society participation. > > Heather Creech > > Director, Global Connectivity > > IISD > > +12049587735 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From admin at alkasir.com Wed Oct 6 17:57:01 2010 From: admin at alkasir.com (Walid Al-Saqaf) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 23:57:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Introduction In-Reply-To: References: <22175821.54751286338506910.JavaMail.68-168-96-64$@68-168-96-64> <469D55E0A215504CAE38D09D178E5F3D2EC2697727@MAILBOX.tfl.internal> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07243@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear Fouad, Shahzad, Rafik and friends, I've just subscribed to the IGC list and am quite delighted to get this warm welcome. I do hope to get to communicate with and learn from IGC's members. I was privileged to have met and learned lots of interesting things from Wolfgang about Internet policy challenges and have since become more interested in tackling issues that deal with the legal and practical dimensions of cyber censorship. Hope to get in touch with you more often and wish you all the very best. Sincerely, Walid ----------------- Walid Al-Saqaf alkasir.com Founder and Administrator 2010/10/6 Fouad Bajwa > He is definitely a person that needs no introduction! Great to have > him join IGC! Welcome on board IGC Walid! > > -- Best > > Fouad Bajwa > > 2010/10/6 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > : > > I want to introduce Walid al Saqaf, a PhD student from the University of > Oerebro. I met him in a PhD course in Denmark these days. He is a technical > expert and has developed a software which helps to bypass censorship. He is > looking for contacts among civil society, in particular with regard related > policies and regulation. Probably Robert Guerra would interested to discuss > with hin. > > > > 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 Wed Oct 6 19:44:38 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 04:44:38 +0500 Subject: [governance] IISD comment on the draft In-Reply-To: <4CACDD19.7020703@wzb.eu> References: <74F140BC0E0AB841BC9FA7D27E55CACB09229BE1@PROTON.iisd.ca> <4CACDD19.7020703@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Rightly phrased by Jeanette. Thank you. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:33 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with Heather's comments. If it is our goal to broaden civil society > participation in the IGF and its preparatory structures, the caucus should > not aim to form the gateway to bodies such as the MAG. Rather it should > delegate selection or recruitment processes to an independent organization > with a broader membership which covers a more diverse set of issues. The IGC > is not well known enough beyond its rather narrow home turf. CoNGO might be > a good candidate for such a role? > > jeanette > > On 06.10.2010 17:58, Heather Creech wrote: >> >> >> I want to raise concern about one specific point in the draft, which >> falls under question 2. This concerns the relationship between the IGC, >> civil society concerned with internet governance / the IGF, and civil >> society in general. >> >> The draft suggests that: "With its existing open, accountable, >> transparent and democratic processes, the Internet Governance Caucus >> could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society >> MAG representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional >> and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints." It adds that this >> could also be achieved through an independent NomCom process. >> >> The IGC could not take on a representative role of this kind in its >> present form, and should not seek to do so (although a NomCom process >> may be feasible). Three main reasons: >> >> a. The IGC charter requires members to be individuals, acting in a >> personal capacity, and does not enable organisational participation. In >> the world at large, including every other area of public policy which is >> affected by the internet, civil society engages predominantly through >> organisations (development agencies, rights agencies, environmental >> agencies, consumer bodies, faith groups, trades unions, women's >> organisations etc.). While it is certainly not a problem for the IGC to >> require individual (and exclude organisational) participation in its own >> activities, this is a problem if it seeks to represent civil society in >> general. >> >> b. The IGC is an actor within civil society in relation to internet >> governance / the IGF. It is not civil society per se, nor can it claim >> to represent civil society as a whole, either within the internet >> community or (even more so) beyond. There are many civil society >> participants in IG and in the IGF who do not participate in the IGC. >> There are many civil society actors (individuals and organisations) >> whose activities/work/lives are greatly impacted by the internet that do >> not participate in IG or the IGF. They cannot be represented by the IGC >> unless they choose to be so represented – and they may not be in a >> position to make that choice. >> >> c) The IGC should not seek to use some kind of institutional status >> within the IGF as a way of leveraging non-members into membership of the >> IGC. The participation of civil society actors in UN or multistakeholder >> processes (and the MAG is both) should not be contingent on or routed >> through a specific membership body (in this case the IGC). (To make an >> analogy: would IGC members accept that their engagement with, say, human >> rights or environmental issues must be contingent on participation in >> Human Rights Watch or IISD?) >> >> In short, the IGC should continue to do what it does well, which is to >> act as the voice of those who choose to be its members. It should not >> seek to speak for those who are not part of it or to act as a gateway >> for their participation in a multistakeholder process such as the >> selection of the MAG. An independent NomCom process which engaged with >> civil society in general may be worth exploring. However, for the >> reasons given above, this also should not be a function of the IGC but >> would need to engage a much wider range of civil society participation. >> >> Heather Creech >> >> Director, Global Connectivity >> >> IISD >> >> +12049587735 >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Oct 6 19:43:59 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 04:43:59 +0500 Subject: [governance] IISD comment on the draft In-Reply-To: <74F140BC0E0AB841BC9FA7D27E55CACB09229BE1@PROTON.iisd.ca> References: <74F140BC0E0AB841BC9FA7D27E55CACB09229BE1@PROTON.iisd.ca> Message-ID: I will have to agree with Heather's comments as it is something that has also been discussed in the open consultations and MAG meetings that we as IGC are itself a Civil Society stakeholder and do not represent all of Civil Society that includes various actors in various individual, organizational, groups, communities and structures. The IGC cannot act as the global gateway for all CS of the world that is interested to participate in the IGF process or is already doing so and that fact will continue to remain. I don't this might even be applicable and this statement does require a revisit. Within the UN process there are existing bodies that provide consultative status to CS with the UN and IGC cannot take that role other than attempt to become a member of and would require IGC to have a registered organization status with a yearly financial audited budget to join and remain in consultative status upon approval of the UNNGLS/UNDESA etc. This would still keep IGC as a member of the CONGO/Consultative Status and equal with other CS and not give IGF the sole responsibility of CS inclusion. IGC should remain clear in its role and what it states in its statement. On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Heather Creech wrote: > I want to raise concern about one specific point in the draft, which falls > under question 2.  This concerns the relationship between the IGC, civil > society concerned with internet governance / the IGF, and civil society in > general. > > > > The draft suggests that:  "With its existing open, accountable, transparent > and democratic processes, the Internet Governance Caucus could form the > foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society MAG > representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and > gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints."  It adds that this could also > be achieved through an independent NomCom process. > > > > The IGC could not take on a representative role of this kind in its present > form, and should not seek to do so (although a NomCom process may be > feasible).  Three main reasons: > > > > a. The IGC charter requires members to be individuals, acting in a personal > capacity, and does not enable organisational participation.  In the world at > large, including every other area of public policy which is affected by the > internet, civil society engages predominantly through organisations > (development agencies, rights agencies, environmental agencies, consumer > bodies, faith groups, trades unions, women's organisations etc.).  While it > is certainly not a problem for the IGC to require individual (and exclude > organisational) participation in its own activities, this is a problem if it > seeks to represent civil society in general. > > > > b. The IGC is an actor within civil society in relation to internet > governance / the IGF.  It is not civil society per se, nor can it claim to > represent civil society as a whole, either within the internet community or > (even more so) beyond.  There are many civil society participants in IG and > in the IGF who do not participate in the IGC.  There are many civil society > actors (individuals and organisations) whose activities/work/lives are > greatly impacted by the internet that do not participate in IG or the IGF. >   They cannot be represented by the IGC unless they choose to be so > represented – and they may not be in a position to make that choice. > > > > c) The IGC should not seek to use some kind of institutional status within > the IGF as a way of leveraging non-members into membership of the IGC.   The > participation of civil society actors in UN or multistakeholder processes > (and the MAG is both) should not be contingent on or routed through a > specific membership body (in this case the IGC).  (To make an analogy: would > IGC members accept that their engagement with, say, human rights or > environmental issues must be contingent on participation in Human Rights > Watch or IISD?) > > > > In short, the IGC should continue to do what it does well, which is to act > as the voice of those who choose to be its members.  It should not seek to > speak for those who are not part of it or to act as a gateway for their > participation in a multistakeholder process such as the selection of the > MAG.  An independent NomCom process which engaged with civil society in > general may be worth exploring.  However, for the reasons given above, this > also should not be a function of the IGC but would need to engage a much > wider range of civil society participation. > > > > > > Heather Creech > > Director, Global Connectivity > > IISD > > +12049587735 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Oct 6 19:49:12 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 04:49:12 +0500 Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: <4CAC25EF.8040806@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Jeremy, can I request that each time a change is made or text included to refurnish the statement again so that it can be seen as a whole instead of in parts? On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 06/10/2010, at 3:31 PM, parminder wrote: > > On the question 6. How best to link with international processes and > institutions? > > I think we need to propose ways beyond ensuring circulation of information. > We should ask for real policy related engagements, whereby the IGF is able > to give recs to these institutions in their area of policy making > competence, and these other institutions are encouraged to bring policy > issues on which they will like to have a larger debate/ dialogue to the IGF, > and the IGF then reverts back on outcomes of the discussion/ dialogue. I > also read some such intention in the Tunis Agenda para on IGF mandate. > > You'll note that at the top of my email I claimed that I had added new text > to the answer to question 6 about this, but in fact I had accidentally > omitted it and the text was identical to the first draft.  Here is what I > had intended to add, based on suggested text from July, but you may have > something better to contribute. > "In either case, such summaries transmitted from the IGF need not take the > form of recommendations (though in the rare event that a rough consensus had > been reached on a particular issue, there is no reason why they couldn't > take that form). > A emerging model for this process is found in the "messages" or > "recommendations" produced by national IGFs such IGF-D (Deutschland), and > regional IGFs such as the East African IGF and EURODIG.  Ideally this would > become a two-way process in which the institutions addressed could also turn > to the IGF with issues they wished the IGF to address through > multi-stakeholder dialogue." > Also, point noted on the subsidiarity issue.  I'll remove that from the next > version, unless others wish to speak up with a compelling counter-argument > (Baudouin, perhaps? - that text was loosely based on your comments). > -- > > 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Oct 6 20:15:46 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 20:15:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] IISD comment on the draft In-Reply-To: References: <74F140BC0E0AB841BC9FA7D27E55CACB09229BE1@PROTON.iisd.ca>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF395@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I beg to differ with Fouad, Heather, and Jeanette. Certainly CONGO is a fine group to be involved, and perhaps Jeremy's phrasing was unartful. But re individual vs institutional representation - I don;t think we should just assume no direct representation or participation. When CSISAC - the OECD Civil Society Information Society Advisory Committee - was being set up, we had similar debates. And we had to push hard to re-open the door for individuals being permitted to be involved at all, vs traditional practices of institutions-only. Of course larger cs orgs do most of heavy lifting, but the principle that individuals are not cut out from participating was preserved. If carried over to IGC context itself in my opinion that would suck most of the life out of our beast. So just saying 'we cs organizations have always done this and are the only ones accredited by UN and IGC is a virtual org with only very lightweight rules and structures' - which we still spend too much time arguing about by the way - does not mean reversion to standard practice is right way to go. In fact just the opposite, the lightweight virtual thing can be more effective because it spans and does not directly threaten other cs orgs. I suggest phrasing might be more like 'IGF offers to assist; blah blah;' not that we propose to manage or claim to represent all possible cs interests in ig. But - we are the ig caucus of cs, which is hard enough to manage as Ginger and Jeremy and predecessors would confirm. And for me, keeping space for individuals to participate, as in IETF or IEEE, or IGC, is important, and we shouldn't just step aside. Maybe CONGO and IGC, or facilitated by igc, or something along those lines. We don't overstep our role, but we also don;t just assume traditional practice makes sense in new context. Lee _______________________________________ From: Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 7:43 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Heather Creech Subject: Re: [governance] IISD comment on the draft I will have to agree with Heather's comments as it is something that has also been discussed in the open consultations and MAG meetings that we as IGC are itself a Civil Society stakeholder and do not represent all of Civil Society that includes various actors in various individual, organizational, groups, communities and structures. The IGC cannot act as the global gateway for all CS of the world that is interested to participate in the IGF process or is already doing so and that fact will continue to remain. I don't this might even be applicable and this statement does require a revisit. Within the UN process there are existing bodies that provide consultative status to CS with the UN and IGC cannot take that role other than attempt to become a member of and would require IGC to have a registered organization status with a yearly financial audited budget to join and remain in consultative status upon approval of the UNNGLS/UNDESA etc. This would still keep IGC as a member of the CONGO/Consultative Status and equal with other CS and not give IGF the sole responsibility of CS inclusion. IGC should remain clear in its role and what it states in its statement. On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Heather Creech wrote: > I want to raise concern about one specific point in the draft, which falls > under question 2. This concerns the relationship between the IGC, civil > society concerned with internet governance / the IGF, and civil society in > general. > > > > The draft suggests that: "With its existing open, accountable, transparent > and democratic processes, the Internet Governance Caucus could form the > foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society MAG > representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and > gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints."  It adds that this could also > be achieved through an independent NomCom process. > > > > The IGC could not take on a representative role of this kind in its present > form, and should not seek to do so (although a NomCom process may be > feasible). Three main reasons: > > > > a. The IGC charter requires members to be individuals, acting in a personal > capacity, and does not enable organisational participation. In the world at > large, including every other area of public policy which is affected by the > internet, civil society engages predominantly through organisations > (development agencies, rights agencies, environmental agencies, consumer > bodies, faith groups, trades unions, women's organisations etc.). While it > is certainly not a problem for the IGC to require individual (and exclude > organisational) participation in its own activities, this is a problem if it > seeks to represent civil society in general. > > > > b. The IGC is an actor within civil society in relation to internet > governance / the IGF. It is not civil society per se, nor can it claim to > represent civil society as a whole, either within the internet community or > (even more so) beyond. There are many civil society participants in IG and > in the IGF who do not participate in the IGC. There are many civil society > actors (individuals and organisations) whose activities/work/lives are > greatly impacted by the internet that do not participate in IG or the IGF. > They cannot be represented by the IGC unless they choose to be so > represented – and they may not be in a position to make that choice. > > > > c) The IGC should not seek to use some kind of institutional status within > the IGF as a way of leveraging non-members into membership of the IGC. The > participation of civil society actors in UN or multistakeholder processes > (and the MAG is both) should not be contingent on or routed through a > specific membership body (in this case the IGC). (To make an analogy: would > IGC members accept that their engagement with, say, human rights or > environmental issues must be contingent on participation in Human Rights > Watch or IISD?) > > > > In short, the IGC should continue to do what it does well, which is to act > as the voice of those who choose to be its members. It should not seek to > speak for those who are not part of it or to act as a gateway for their > participation in a multistakeholder process such as the selection of the > MAG. An independent NomCom process which engaged with civil society in > general may be worth exploring. However, for the reasons given above, this > also should not be a function of the IGC but would need to engage a much > wider range of civil society participation. > > > > > > Heather Creech > > Director, Global Connectivity > > IISD > > +12049587735 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 6 23:20:44 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 11:20:44 +0800 Subject: [governance] IISD comment on the draft In-Reply-To: <74F140BC0E0AB841BC9FA7D27E55CACB09229BE1@PROTON.iisd.ca> References: <74F140BC0E0AB841BC9FA7D27E55CACB09229BE1@PROTON.iisd.ca> Message-ID: On 06/10/2010, at 11:58 PM, Heather Creech wrote: > I want to raise concern about one specific point in the draft, which falls under question 2. This concerns the relationship between the IGC, civil society concerned with internet governance / the IGF, and civil society in general. > > The draft suggests that: "With its existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes, the Internet Governance Caucus could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society MAG representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints." It adds that this could also be achieved through an independent NomCom process. It was in anticipation of concerns such as yours that I worded it "could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select" rather than just "could select". I consider that this is a fair statement of an appropriate role for the IGC within a potentially broader civil society coalition, in that we have much greater expertise and interest in IG issues than >90% of the NGOs who are active in CONGO. But, please suggest specific wording that would further clarify the IGC's role. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 7 03:57:32 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 13:27:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: <4CAC25EF.8040806@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4CAD7D6C.2050707@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 06 October 2010 01:40 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 06/10/2010, at 3:31 PM, parminder wrote: > >> On the question ****6. How best to link with international processes >> and institutions?**** >> >> I think we need to propose ways beyond ensuring circulation of >> information. We should ask for real policy related engagements, >> whereby the IGF is able to give recs to these institutions in their >> area of policy making competence, and these other institutions are >> encouraged to bring policy issues on which they will like to have a >> larger debate/ dialogue to the IGF, and the IGF then reverts back on >> outcomes of the discussion/ dialogue. I also read some such intention >> in the Tunis Agenda para on IGF mandate. > > You'll note that at the top of my email I claimed that I had added new > text to the answer to question 6 about this, but in fact I had > accidentally omitted it and the text was identical to the first draft. > Here is what I had intended to add, based on suggested text from > July, but you may have something better to contribute. > > "In either case, such summaries transmitted from the IGF need not take > the form of recommendations (though in the rare event that a rough > consensus had been reached on a particular issue, there is no reason > why they couldn't take that form). Tunis Agenda expressly includes making recommendations among IGF's tasks. I see no reason why we should say ' need not take the form of recommendations' and make it look like a very unlikely possibility, rather seeking clearer action to realise that part of IGF's mandate. Comments like the ones we propose to give, especially at hot moments of actual policy/ resolution writing get first of all seen in their general intent. What we are saying would basically be taken to mean that the IGC is generally cynical vis a vis possibilities of recommendations by the IGF. That is quite retrograde, in my view, especially in an environment when today there seems to be somewhat more openness to speak about possible recs, and how they can happen. I dont think we should include the above text at all. Parminder > > A emerging model for this process is found in the "messages" or > "recommendations" produced by national IGFs such IGF-D (Deutschland), > and regional IGFs such as the East African IGF and EURODIG. Ideally > this would become a two-way process in which the institutions > addressed could also turn to the IGF with issues they wished the IGF > to address through multi-stakeholder dialogue." > > Also, point noted on the subsidiarity issue. I'll remove that from > the next version, unless others wish to speak up with a compelling > counter-argument (Baudouin, perhaps? - that text was loosely based on > your comments). > > -- > > *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 Thu Oct 7 04:37:13 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 16:37:13 +0800 Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <4CAD7D6C.2050707@itforchange.net> References: <4CAC25EF.8040806@itforchange.net> <4CAD7D6C.2050707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <56D66BD9-4EBE-4387-95D7-814F62B11FC3@ciroap.org> On 07/10/2010, at 3:57 PM, parminder wrote: >> "In either case, such summaries transmitted from the IGF need not take the form of recommendations (though in the rare event that a rough consensus had been reached on a particular issue, there is no reason why they couldn't take that form). > > Tunis Agenda expressly includes making recommendations among IGF's tasks. I see no reason why we should say ' need not take the form of recommendations' and make it look like a very unlikely possibility, rather seeking clearer action to realise that part of IGF's mandate. As you know Parminder, on a personal level, I agree with you. But in the interests of putting out a consensus statement of the IGC at large, perhaps it is best, as you suggest, that we just omit this paragraph. How did you feel about the following one? - >> A emerging model for this process is found in the "messages" or "recommendations" produced by national IGFs such IGF-D (Deutschland), and regional IGFs such as the East African IGF and EURODIG. Ideally this would become a two-way process in which the institutions addressed could also turn to the IGF with issues they wished the IGF to address through multi-stakeholder dialogue." -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From meryem at marzouki.info Thu Oct 7 04:45:18 2010 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:45:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] IISD comment on the draft In-Reply-To: References: <74F140BC0E0AB841BC9FA7D27E55CACB09229BE1@PROTON.iisd.ca> Message-ID: <27EE372F-7350-4990-BF1A-F028D1F06224@marzouki.info> Dear all, I agree with part of what Heather said, in summary that IGC cannot claim to represent neither the whole CS @ IGF, nor, a fortiori, the whole CS in general. However, one should take into account the fact that the IGC, while being far from perfect - and, as someone who raised the point many times, I'm very comfortable saying so - is not simply one CSO like any other @ IGF. To start with, it includes people (and NGO representatives) with different views on IG, and in that sense it is very different from one single NGO with identified views and objectives. CONGO is not an option, at least not without a serious discussion. Not only because of the reasons Lee provided (participation of individuals as well), but also because this would mean a change in the IGC, as well as the IGF functioning and especially the MAG's role. I don't know if this option was discussed inside the MAG already, but I really see this suggestion would constitute a radical political turn, which objectives would need to be clarified and discussed. But not now, we have to finalize the document first. What we need to discuss is the possibility to set up a kind of "CS plenary", like we had during WSIS (and that worked pretty well), where all individuals, NGOs, other kind of CSO groups, and maybe their grouping into thematic caucuses can interact. But this, again, is a long term discussion, and our priority now is to finalize the document. As for now, my opinion is that, following Jeremy's proposal below, we might change the wordings so that the document takes into account Heather's concern (which are very much valid) and at the same time doesn't radically downsize IGC feature, role and achievements to that of any NGO or CSO. Above all, the document shouldn't come at this step with any alternative, like CONGO or any other. There is no need to hurry in this document with a definitive architecture for CS representation at IGF. Let's be cautious here, let's leave the door open, while asking for some change. Best, Meryem Le 7 oct. 10 à 05:20, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > On 06/10/2010, at 11:58 PM, Heather Creech wrote: > >> I want to raise concern about one specific point in the draft, >> which falls under question 2. This concerns the relationship >> between the IGC, civil society concerned with internet >> governance / the IGF, and civil society in general. >> >> The draft suggests that: "With its existing open, accountable, >> transparent and democratic processes, the Internet Governance >> Caucus could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select >> civil society MAG representatives, subject to appropriate criteria >> to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of >> viewpoints." It adds that this could also be achieved through an >> independent NomCom process. > > It was in anticipation of concerns such as yours that I worded it > "could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select" rather > than just "could select". I consider that this is a fair statement > of an appropriate role for the IGC within a potentially broader > civil society coalition, in that we have much greater expertise and > interest in IG issues than >90% of the NGOs who are active in > CONGO. But, please suggest specific wording that would further > clarify the IGC's role. > > -- > 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 nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Thu Oct 7 04:51:59 2010 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 09:51:59 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <4C9DE370.9040108@gmail.com> <4CA1EAA8.20007@gih.com> Message-ID: <812978.37580.qm@web25903.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Hello Sivasubramanian, Congratulation for this successful remote hub in Chennai. I am especially touched by this big logistics. I can understand it was a big event. Regards NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul Tel : +257 79 981459 ________________________________ De : Sivasubramanian M À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tim Davies Cc : Adam Peake Envoyé le : Mar 5 octobre 2010, 21h 21min 50s Objet : Re: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 Hello, We organized a hub at Chennai, which was initially meant to be a small room for 30 people sponsored by GreatLakes Institute of Managment, but after we met with the management of this School of Management, they committed a lot more resources - made available a world class Smart Classroom for 60 participants, ample bandwidth, a large auditorium for 300 for occasional meetings, transportation facilities for participants from the city, and as many rooms as we wanted for those who chose to stay. This is a very serious business school with an amazingly loaded time-table that kept students occupied at least until midnight seven days a week, but still class room were realigned to accommodate participation. Over a hundred students took turns to participate in the various sessions. http://isocmadras.blogspot.com/2010/09/igf-remote-participation-hub-at-great.html This was also an occasion to invite youth participation in the IGF: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com/2010/09/youth-participation-in-internet.html The Isoc Chennai hub at GreatLakes http://greatlakes.edu.in/ is an experiment which indicates that academic Institutions can play a pivotal role in enhancing youth participation in Internet Governance. It felt good to be with the students who organized and took part in the IGF hub. Those working on improving youth participation may draw the attention of academic institutions to the role of GreatLakes in facilitating the Chennai hub. Sivasubramanian M http://turiya.co.in http://www.isocmadras.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Tim Davies wrote: This highlights a useful distinction to think about when planning developments of Remote Participation: how much development of RP should focus on technical development - and how much on developing the facilitation process and the skills/awareness of remote participation amongst panellists and participants. > > >(E.g. We tried to get a information sheet on the online social reporting process >into the delegate bags this year... and trying to do similar with a one-page >description of Remote Participation and how people physically in the room can >best support effective RP in delegates packs for IGF11 / information on posters >outside rooms... may go a long way to helping the process - as right now often >physical participants are unaware of what RP is / is like.) > > >I get the sense a big part of effective RP this year was about having skilled >and engaged facilitators at both ends of the connection... and continuing to >develop the role of these facilitators may be a worthwhile area to think about. > > >Tim > > > >On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >The facilities made available for remote participation were amazing: video and >real time transcripts from every room a great achievement. >> >>During security, openness, privacy session Kieren did a very good job of >>bringing in the remote hubs and also telling us of how many people were there in >>a particular place: 44 people in Dhaka, naming the hubs that were following and >>chatting. Gave a good sense that we weren't alone in the room, the hubs started >>to became a real people rather than something off in the ether. >> >>Suggest next time each of the hubs and moderators are encouraged to find out who >>is online, how many, where are they. Make them more real. >> >>Adam >> >> >> >> >>Olivier's well documented challenges here are quite real. >>> >>>Not wanting to simplify the problem too much ... but it might be useful to break >>>this down to its most fundamental. To me, from both a technical and business >>>view, it appears to be a matter of perspective and priority. >>> >>>For this to really work and for the technicians to fully "get" what the >>>objectives are, each IGF Workshop or Event should, in fact, >>>be philosophically treated as an old school "Webinar", in a manner of speaking, >>>as opposed to a dealing with it as an in situ event/workshop with Remote >>>Participants being seen as the "outsiders". >>> >>>I expect that if we adopt this perspective then the most basic issues of how to >>>best wire the PA systems, how remote participants engage with the Event as >>>equals (for eg. simple things as whether the presentation being viewed in situ >>>is the identical to and moves at the same speed as the one in the possession of >>>the Remote Moderation "hat") will actually be resolved relatively easily ... >>>putting the more logistical issues of bandwidth, delays, acoustics etc. aside >>>for the moment. >>> >>>Of course, having the actual architects/engineers of the Remote Participation >>>technology engaged at all stages (including in situ) will also be more than >>>useful. >>> >>>Best, >>> >>>Tracy >>> >>> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > >-- > > >http://www.timdavies.org.uk >07834 856 303. >@timdavies > >Co-director of Practical Participation: http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk >-------------------------- >Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - >#5381958. > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 7 05:17:57 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 14:47:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <56D66BD9-4EBE-4387-95D7-814F62B11FC3@ciroap.org> References: <4CAC25EF.8040806@itforchange.net> <4CAD7D6C.2050707@itforchange.net> <56D66BD9-4EBE-4387-95D7-814F62B11FC3@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4CAD9045.2050007@itforchange.net> On Thursday 07 October 2010 02:07 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 07/10/2010, at 3:57 PM, parminder wrote: > >>> "In either case, such summaries transmitted from the IGF need not >>> take the form of recommendations (though in the rare event that a >>> rough consensus had been reached on a particular issue, there is no >>> reason why they couldn't take that form). >> >> Tunis Agenda expressly includes making recommendations among IGF's >> tasks. I see no reason why we should say ' need not take the form of >> recommendations' and make it look like a very unlikely possibility, >> rather seeking clearer action to realise that part of IGF's mandate. > > As you know Parminder, on a personal level, I agree with you. But in > the interests of putting out a consensus statement of the IGC at > large, perhaps it is best, as you suggest, that we just omit this > paragraph. How did you feel about the following one? - > >>> A emerging model for this process is found in the "messages" or >>> "recommendations" produced by national IGFs such IGF-D >>> (Deutschland), and regional IGFs such as the East African IGF and >>> EURODIG. Ideally this would become a two-way process in which the >>> institutions addressed could also turn to the IGF with issues they >>> wished the IGF to address through multi-stakeholder dialogue." > Can we preface it with "While other possible models of developing recommendations may also be explored, a emerging..... the reason is, I do not want us/ IGF to entirely forgo more detailed and focused work on specific issues that could become non-binding recommendatory reports, as happens at many U N forums/ bodies (for instance many gender groups in the UN system produce such reports), which may be more of a need to be addressed vis a vis policy vacuums at the global level rather that feel-good satisfy-all kind of more or less banal statements, as far as their use for policy work goes. Parminder > -- > > *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 Thu Oct 7 05:48:50 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 18:48:50 +0900 Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <4CAD7D6C.2050707@itforchange.net> References: <4CAC25EF.8040806@itforchange.net> <4CAD7D6C.2050707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: >On Wednesday 06 October 2010 01:40 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>On 06/10/2010, at 3:31 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>>On the question 6. How best to link with >>>international processes and institutions? >>> >>>I think we need to propose ways beyond >>>ensuring circulation of information. We should >>>ask for real policy related engagements, >>>whereby the IGF is able to give recs to these >>>institutions in their area of policy making >>>competence, and these other institutions are >>>encouraged to bring policy issues on which >>>they will like to have a larger debate/ >>>dialogue to the IGF, and the IGF then reverts >>>back on outcomes of the discussion/ dialogue. >>>I also read some such intention in the Tunis >>>Agenda para on IGF mandate. >>> >> >>You'll note that at the top of my email I >>claimed that I had added new text to the answer >>to question 6 about this, but in fact I had >>accidentally omitted it and the text was >>identical to the first draft.  Here is what I >>had intended to add, based on suggested text >>from July, but you may have something better to >>contribute. >> >>"In either case, such summaries transmitted >>from the IGF need not take the form of >>recommendations (though in the rare event that >>a rough consensus had been reached on a >>particular issue, there is no reason why they >>couldn't take that form). >> > >Tunis Agenda expressly includes making >recommendations among IGF's tasks. I see no >reason why we should say ' need not take the >form of recommendations' and make it look like a >very unlikely possibility, rather seeking >clearer action to realise that part of IGF's >mandate. It's worth remembering what the Tunis agenda actually says about recommendations: "Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations." Quite narrow. It would be better to follow language used by Mr. Sha in his briefing on the continuation of the forum, in summarizing what speakers suggested by way of improvements to the IGF: More visibility for outcomes, and possibly the ability to make recommendations. Which I think would be close to Jeremy's language. Copying in Mr. Sha's words might be helpful. Adam >Comments like the ones we propose to give, >especially at hot moments of actual policy/ >resolution writing get first of all seen in >their general intent. What we are saying would >basically be taken to mean that the IGC is >generally cynical vis a vis possibilities of >recommendations by the IGF. That is quite >retrograde, in my view, especially in an >environment when today there seems to be >somewhat more openness to speak about possible >recs, and how they can happen. I dont think we >should include the above text at all. Parminder > > >> >>A emerging model for this process is found in >>the "messages" or "recommendations" produced by >>national IGFs such IGF-D (Deutschland), and >>regional IGFs such as the East African IGF and >>EURODIG.  Ideally this would become a two-way >>process in which the institutions addressed >>could also turn to the IGF with issues they >>wished the IGF to address through >>multi-stakeholder dialogue." >> >> >>Also, point noted on the subsidiarity issue. >> I'll remove that from the next version, unless >>others wish to speak up with a compelling >>counter-argument (Baudouin, perhaps? - that >>text was loosely based on your comments). >> >>-- >> >>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 anriette at apc.org Thu Oct 7 06:11:32 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 12:11:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] IISD comment on the draft In-Reply-To: <27EE372F-7350-4990-BF1A-F028D1F06224@marzouki.info> References: <74F140BC0E0AB841BC9FA7D27E55CACB09229BE1@PROTON.iisd.ca> <27EE372F-7350-4990-BF1A-F028D1F06224@marzouki.info> Message-ID: <4CAD9CD4.5080007@apc.org> Hi all My comment (not an official APC position): I think exclusivity is not a good idea. The IGC is a legitimate source of recommendations for CS representatives. It has established procedures for coming up with names and I think it is important that we strengthen this legitimacy. If we try to propose that it is the sole nominator of CS representatives we run the risk of being seen as making a claim of being representative, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, of limiting opportunity for other CS bodies and processes. For example, there are regional CS spaces that have had their own consultative processes for coming up with names. Should they then channel their names through an IGC process? APC has around 50 member organisations. We have internal consultative processes when coming up with candidates... usually driven also by which sub-regions are most interested or active, depending on the issue. It is important for us to be able to propose those names as APC. We also work closely with groups outside of APC who are active in, for example, gender justice. We have been working hard for years to get the women's movement to be more involved in internet governance issues. One way in which we try to do this is to encourage them to nominate people for working groups. I would like to see groups like IISD, and the community informatics sector (Michael Gurstein's network), and some of the mainstream human rights people we are trying to draw into IG, nominate candidates in their own names as civil society oganisations or networks. The difficulty with channeling all these potential candidates through the IGC is that they are often not known to the IGC. The IGC community, like most communities, tend to identify people that are active in the IGF space. This is appropriate. But limiting potential CS voices in working groups etc. to this community could have the effect of CS involvement in internet governance issues even narrower than it already is. Personally I think we want to have more CS actors involved from a wider range of countries and thematic areas. Part of us sending a message to governments and international organisations that CS is in this space to stay, is to widen engagement from organised civil society. Anriette PS Agree with Meryem on CONGO. I am arguing simply for channels for nomination of CS reps not being exclusive. On 07/10/10 10:45, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Dear all, > > I agree with part of what Heather said, in summary that IGC cannot > claim to represent neither the whole CS @ IGF, nor, a fortiori, the > whole CS in general. > However, one should take into account the fact that the IGC, while > being far from perfect - and, as someone who raised the point many > times, I'm very comfortable saying so - is not simply one CSO like any > other @ IGF. To start with, it includes people (and NGO > representatives) with different views on IG, and in that sense it is > very different from one single NGO with identified views and objectives. > > CONGO is not an option, at least not without a serious discussion. Not > only because of the reasons Lee provided (participation of individuals > as well), but also because this would mean a change in the IGC, as > well as the IGF functioning and especially the MAG's role. I don't > know if this option was discussed inside the MAG already, but I really > see this suggestion would constitute a radical political turn, which > objectives would need to be clarified and discussed. But not now, we > have to finalize the document first. > > What we need to discuss is the possibility to set up a kind of "CS > plenary", like we had during WSIS (and that worked pretty well), where > all individuals, NGOs, other kind of CSO groups, and maybe their > grouping into thematic caucuses can interact. But this, again, is a > long term discussion, and our priority now is to finalize the document. > > As for now, my opinion is that, following Jeremy's proposal below, we > might change the wordings so that the document takes into account > Heather's concern (which are very much valid) and at the same time > doesn't radically downsize IGC feature, role and achievements to that > of any NGO or CSO. Above all, the document shouldn't come at this step > with any alternative, like CONGO or any other. There is no need to > hurry in this document with a definitive architecture for CS > representation at IGF. Let's be cautious here, let's leave the door > open, while asking for some change. > > Best, > Meryem > > Le 7 oct. 10 à 05:20, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > >> On 06/10/2010, at 11:58 PM, Heather Creech wrote: >> >>> I want to raise concern about one specific point in the draft, which >>> falls under question 2. This concerns the relationship between the >>> IGC, civil society concerned with internet governance / the IGF, and >>> civil society in general. >>> The draft suggests that: "With its existing open, accountable, >>> transparent and democratic processes, the Internet Governance Caucus >>> could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select civil >>> society MAG representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to >>> ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints." >>> It adds that this could also be achieved through an independent >>> NomCom process. >> >> It was in anticipation of concerns such as yours that I worded it >> "could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select" rather >> than just "could select". I consider that this is a fair statement >> of an appropriate role for the IGC within a potentially broader civil >> society coalition, in that we have much greater expertise and >> interest in IG issues than >90% of the NGOs who are active in CONGO. >> But, please suggest specific wording that would further clarify the >> IGC's role. >> >> -- >> >> *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. >> >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director association for progressive communications www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From david.souter at runbox.com Thu Oct 7 06:21:51 2010 From: david.souter at runbox.com (David Souter) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 11:21:51 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] IISD comment on the draft In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF395@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <74F140BC0E0AB841BC9FA7D27E55CACB09229BE1@PROTON.iisd.ca>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF395@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Lee implies, I think, that Heather is arguing that civil society participation in this context should be organisational rather than individual. She is not. It is and should be, clearly, both. What Heather is arguing is that a) civil society is much more extensive than the IGC and b) much of it is built around organisations rather than individuals. These are important points. The IGC's charter identifies its own method of organisation and participation. One of the implications of this is that civil society organisations can't participate in it as they do in other civil society contexts. That is entirely fine so far as the IGC is concerned, but it can't be a decision made for the whole of civil society. As Heather points out, the IGC is one among civil society participants concerned with internet governance and the wider impact of the internet. It should not, therefore, seek to act as a gateway for civil society in general. The use of the word "foundation" does not, as Jeremy suggests, resolve this, as it still implies that such a gateway should be built around the IGC and its experience/ existence. This implies some kind of special institutional role or capacity for the IGC. However, it doesn't have the breadth of participation that could justify this. There are other civil society entities that have a strong understanding of the internet and/or engagement with it, whether in its technical or human (social/cultural/economic) dimensions, whether in particular aspects or across the board. ----- Start Original Message ----- Sent: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 20:15:46 -0400 From: Lee W McKnight To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , Fouad Bajwa , Heather Creech Subject: RE: [governance] IISD comment on the draft > I beg to differ with Fouad, Heather, and Jeanette. > > Certainly CONGO is a fine group to be involved, and perhaps Jeremy's phrasing was unartful. > > But re individual vs institutional representation - I don;t think we should just assume no direct representation or participation. > > When CSISAC - the OECD Civil Society Information Society Advisory Committee - was being set up, we had similar debates. > > And we had to push hard to re-open the door for individuals being permitted to be involved at all, vs traditional practices of institutions-only. Of course larger cs orgs do most of heavy lifting, but the principle that individuals are not cut out from participating was preserved. > > If carried over to IGC context itself in my opinion that would suck most of the life out of our beast. > > So just saying 'we cs organizations have always done this and are the only ones accredited by UN and IGC is a virtual org with only very lightweight rules and structures' - which we still spend too much time arguing about by the way - does not mean reversion to standard practice is right way to go. In fact just the opposite, the lightweight virtual thing can be more effective because it spans and does not directly threaten other cs orgs. > > I suggest phrasing might be more like 'IGF offers to assist; blah blah;' not that we propose to manage or claim to represent all possible cs interests in ig. But - we are the ig caucus of cs, which is hard enough to manage as Ginger and Jeremy and predecessors would confirm. > > And for me, keeping space for individuals to participate, as in IETF or IEEE, or IGC, is important, and we shouldn't just step aside. Maybe CONGO and IGC, or facilitated by igc, or something along those lines. > > We don't overstep our role, but we also don;t just assume traditional practice makes sense in new context. > > Lee > _______________________________________ > From: Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 7:43 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Heather Creech > Subject: Re: [governance] IISD comment on the draft > > I will have to agree with Heather's comments as it is something that > has also been discussed in the open consultations and MAG meetings > that we as IGC are itself a Civil Society stakeholder and do not > represent all of Civil Society that includes various actors in various > individual, organizational, groups, communities and structures. > > The IGC cannot act as the global gateway for all CS of the world that > is interested to participate in the IGF process or is already doing so > and that fact will continue to remain. I don't this might even be > applicable and this statement does require a revisit. Within the UN > process there are existing bodies that provide consultative status to > CS with the UN and IGC cannot take that role other than attempt to > become a member of and would require IGC to have a registered > organization status with a yearly financial audited budget to join and > remain in consultative status upon approval of the UNNGLS/UNDESA etc. > This would still keep IGC as a member of the CONGO/Consultative Status > and equal with other CS and not give IGF the sole responsibility of CS > inclusion. > > IGC should remain clear in its role and what it states in its statement. > > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Heather Creech wrote: > > I want to raise concern about one specific point in the draft, which falls > > under question 2. This concerns the relationship between the IGC, civil > > society concerned with internet governance / the IGF, and civil society in > > general. > > > > > > > > The draft suggests that: "With its existing open, accountable, transparent > > and democratic processes, the Internet Governance Caucus could form the > > foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society MAG > > representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and > > gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints."  It adds that this could also > > be achieved through an independent NomCom process. > > > > > > > > The IGC could not take on a representative role of this kind in its present > > form, and should not seek to do so (although a NomCom process may be > > feasible). Three main reasons: > > > > > > > > a. The IGC charter requires members to be individuals, acting in a personal > > capacity, and does not enable organisational participation. In the world at > > large, including every other area of public policy which is affected by the > > internet, civil society engages predominantly through organisations > > (development agencies, rights agencies, environmental agencies, consumer > > bodies, faith groups, trades unions, women's organisations etc.). While it > > is certainly not a problem for the IGC to require individual (and exclude > > organisational) participation in its own activities, this is a problem if it > > seeks to represent civil society in general. > > > > > > > > b. The IGC is an actor within civil society in relation to internet > > governance / the IGF. It is not civil society per se, nor can it claim to > > represent civil society as a whole, either within the internet community or > > (even more so) beyond. There are many civil society participants in IG and > > in the IGF who do not participate in the IGC. There are many civil society > > actors (individuals and organisations) whose activities/work/lives are > > greatly impacted by the internet that do not participate in IG or the IGF. > > They cannot be represented by the IGC unless they choose to be so > > represented and they may not be in a position to make that choice. > > > > > > > > c) The IGC should not seek to use some kind of institutional status within > > the IGF as a way of leveraging non-members into membership of the IGC. The > > participation of civil society actors in UN or multistakeholder processes > > (and the MAG is both) should not be contingent on or routed through a > > specific membership body (in this case the IGC). (To make an analogy: would > > IGC members accept that their engagement with, say, human rights or > > environmental issues must be contingent on participation in Human Rights > > Watch or IISD?) > > > > > > > > In short, the IGC should continue to do what it does well, which is to act > > as the voice of those who choose to be its members. It should not seek to > > speak for those who are not part of it or to act as a gateway for their > > participation in a multistakeholder process such as the selection of the > > MAG. An independent NomCom process which engaged with civil society in > > general may be worth exploring. However, for the reasons given above, this > > also should not be a function of the IGC but would need to engage a much > > wider range of civil society participation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Heather Creech > > > > Director, Global Connectivity > > > > IISD > > > > +12049587735 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ----- End Original Message ----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Oct 7 06:39:20 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 06:09:20 -0430 Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <4CAD9045.2050007@itforchange.net> References: <4CAC25EF.8040806@itforchange.net> <4CAD7D6C.2050707@itforchange.net> <56D66BD9-4EBE-4387-95D7-814F62B11FC3@ciroap.org> <4CAD9045.2050007@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4CADA358.3010503@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 Thu Oct 7 06:53:00 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 12:53:00 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] IISD comment on the draft References: <74F140BC0E0AB841BC9FA7D27E55CACB09229BE1@PROTON.iisd.ca> <4CACDD19.7020703@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07248@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi all CONGO was well involved in WSIS because it was Renata who took the burden. I missed CONGO in recent WSIS and IGF activities. It would be good to have someone like Renata back in the drivers seat. But as long as no new Renata is there, I would have some reservations. However, I agree that we have to go beyond IGC. But the involved other groups have to have a clear understanding of IG and linkage to constitutencies active in this field. What we have so far is the ALAC/ALSs structures under ICANN, the CISAC under OECD and, in a broader sense, WSIS accredited NGOs which have expressed an interest in IG. It needs obviously some coordination. One way out could be - remember the WSIS CS Structures - thast we propose under a renewed IGF/MAG a "Civil Society Internet Governance Coordination Group" (CS-IGCG) which would be open for all kind of CS IG networks. The IGC would be certainly a key driver wirthin the CS-IGCG. And it would be a signal that the IGC hos no intention to monopolize it. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Gesendet: Mi 06.10.2010 22:33 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Heather Creech Betreff: Re: [governance] IISD comment on the draft Hi, I agree with Heather's comments. If it is our goal to broaden civil society participation in the IGF and its preparatory structures, the caucus should not aim to form the gateway to bodies such as the MAG. Rather it should delegate selection or recruitment processes to an independent organization with a broader membership which covers a more diverse set of issues. The IGC is not well known enough beyond its rather narrow home turf. CoNGO might be a good candidate for such a role? jeanette On 06.10.2010 17:58, Heather Creech wrote: > > > I want to raise concern about one specific point in the draft, which > falls under question 2. This concerns the relationship between the IGC, > civil society concerned with internet governance / the IGF, and civil > society in general. > > The draft suggests that: "With its existing open, accountable, > transparent and democratic processes, the Internet Governance Caucus > could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society > MAG representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional > and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints." It adds that this > could also be achieved through an independent NomCom process. > > The IGC could not take on a representative role of this kind in its > present form, and should not seek to do so (although a NomCom process > may be feasible). Three main reasons: > > a. The IGC charter requires members to be individuals, acting in a > personal capacity, and does not enable organisational participation. In > the world at large, including every other area of public policy which is > affected by the internet, civil society engages predominantly through > organisations (development agencies, rights agencies, environmental > agencies, consumer bodies, faith groups, trades unions, women's > organisations etc.). While it is certainly not a problem for the IGC to > require individual (and exclude organisational) participation in its own > activities, this is a problem if it seeks to represent civil society in > general. > > b. The IGC is an actor within civil society in relation to internet > governance / the IGF. It is not civil society per se, nor can it claim > to represent civil society as a whole, either within the internet > community or (even more so) beyond. There are many civil society > participants in IG and in the IGF who do not participate in the IGC. > There are many civil society actors (individuals and organisations) > whose activities/work/lives are greatly impacted by the internet that do > not participate in IG or the IGF. They cannot be represented by the IGC > unless they choose to be so represented - and they may not be in a > position to make that choice. > > c) The IGC should not seek to use some kind of institutional status > within the IGF as a way of leveraging non-members into membership of the > IGC. The participation of civil society actors in UN or multistakeholder > processes (and the MAG is both) should not be contingent on or routed > through a specific membership body (in this case the IGC). (To make an > analogy: would IGC members accept that their engagement with, say, human > rights or environmental issues must be contingent on participation in > Human Rights Watch or IISD?) > > In short, the IGC should continue to do what it does well, which is to > act as the voice of those who choose to be its members. It should not > seek to speak for those who are not part of it or to act as a gateway > for their participation in a multistakeholder process such as the > selection of the MAG. An independent NomCom process which engaged with > civil society in general may be worth exploring. However, for the > reasons given above, this also should not be a function of the IGC but > would need to engage a much wider range of civil society participation. > > Heather Creech > > Director, Global Connectivity > > IISD > > +12049587735 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From meryem at marzouki.info Thu Oct 7 07:44:28 2010 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 13:44:28 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] IISD comment on the draft In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07248@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <74F140BC0E0AB841BC9FA7D27E55CACB09229BE1@PROTON.iisd.ca> <4CACDD19.7020703@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07248@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Le 7 oct. 10 à 12:53, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : > [...]However, I agree that we have to go beyond IGC. But the > involved other groups have to have a clear understanding of IG and > linkage to constitutencies active in this field. What we have so > far is the ALAC/ALSs structures under ICANN, the CISAC under OECD > and, in a broader sense, WSIS accredited NGOs which have expressed > an interest in IG. It needs obviously some coordination. [...] There is absolutely no reason to (and above all no legitimacy to) put any condition on the involvment of any group, provided that it is a genuine CS group, of course. This kind of exclusion, if originating from the IGF or UN bodies themselves, would raise protest against attemps of exclusion. I'm wondering what it would lead to if originating from a CS group like IGC.. Best, Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Oct 7 08:14:32 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 14:14:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] IISD comment on the draft In-Reply-To: References: <74F140BC0E0AB841BC9FA7D27E55CACB09229BE1@PROTON.iisd.ca> <4CACDD19.7020703@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07248@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4CADB9A8.80109@wzb.eu> Hi, just to clarify. I mentioned CoNGO as an example to illustrate what kind of organization and degree of visibility or integration would be adequate. I did not mean to imply that only organizations should be represented in coordinating bodies. As David said, organizations and individuals should be included. jeanette Am 07.10.2010 13:44, schrieb Meryem Marzouki: > > Le 7 oct. 10 à 12:53, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : > >> [...]However, I agree that we have to go beyond IGC. But the involved >> other groups have to have a clear understanding of IG and linkage to >> constitutencies active in this field. What we have so far is the >> ALAC/ALSs structures under ICANN, the CISAC under OECD and, in a >> broader sense, WSIS accredited NGOs which have expressed an interest >> in IG. It needs obviously some coordination. [...] > > There is absolutely no reason to (and above all no legitimacy to) put > any condition on the involvment of any group, provided that it is a > genuine CS group, of course. This kind of exclusion, if originating from > the IGF or UN bodies themselves, would raise protest against attemps of > exclusion. I'm wondering what it would lead to if originating from a CS > group like IGC.. > > Best, > Meryem____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 7 09:15:09 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 09:15:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] IISD comment on the draft In-Reply-To: <4CAD9CD4.5080007@apc.org> References: <74F140BC0E0AB841BC9FA7D27E55CACB09229BE1@PROTON.iisd.ca> <27EE372F-7350-4990-BF1A-F028D1F06224@marzouki.info>,<4CAD9CD4.5080007@apc.org> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF39C@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Agreed (in my individual capacity : ). No need of exclusivity and no chance of that working anyway. IGC can just say it is preparing to make recommendations via a nomcom and is encouraging other civil society orgs to do so as well. Lee ________________________________________ From: Anriette Esterhuysen [anriette at apc.org] Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 6:11 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] IISD comment on the draft Hi all My comment (not an official APC position): I think exclusivity is not a good idea. The IGC is a legitimate source of recommendations for CS representatives. It has established procedures for coming up with names and I think it is important that we strengthen this legitimacy. If we try to propose that it is the sole nominator of CS representatives we run the risk of being seen as making a claim of being representative, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, of limiting opportunity for other CS bodies and processes. For example, there are regional CS spaces that have had their own consultative processes for coming up with names. Should they then channel their names through an IGC process? APC has around 50 member organisations. We have internal consultative processes when coming up with candidates... usually driven also by which sub-regions are most interested or active, depending on the issue. It is important for us to be able to propose those names as APC. We also work closely with groups outside of APC who are active in, for example, gender justice. We have been working hard for years to get the women's movement to be more involved in internet governance issues. One way in which we try to do this is to encourage them to nominate people for working groups. I would like to see groups like IISD, and the community informatics sector (Michael Gurstein's network), and some of the mainstream human rights people we are trying to draw into IG, nominate candidates in their own names as civil society oganisations or networks. The difficulty with channeling all these potential candidates through the IGC is that they are often not known to the IGC. The IGC community, like most communities, tend to identify people that are active in the IGF space. This is appropriate. But limiting potential CS voices in working groups etc. to this community could have the effect of CS involvement in internet governance issues even narrower than it already is. Personally I think we want to have more CS actors involved from a wider range of countries and thematic areas. Part of us sending a message to governments and international organisations that CS is in this space to stay, is to widen engagement from organised civil society. Anriette PS Agree with Meryem on CONGO. I am arguing simply for channels for nomination of CS reps not being exclusive. On 07/10/10 10:45, Meryem Marzouki wrote: Dear all, I agree with part of what Heather said, in summary that IGC cannot claim to represent neither the whole CS @ IGF, nor, a fortiori, the whole CS in general. However, one should take into account the fact that the IGC, while being far from perfect - and, as someone who raised the point many times, I'm very comfortable saying so - is not simply one CSO like any other @ IGF. To start with, it includes people (and NGO representatives) with different views on IG, and in that sense it is very different from one single NGO with identified views and objectives. CONGO is not an option, at least not without a serious discussion. Not only because of the reasons Lee provided (participation of individuals as well), but also because this would mean a change in the IGC, as well as the IGF functioning and especially the MAG's role. I don't know if this option was discussed inside the MAG already, but I really see this suggestion would constitute a radical political turn, which objectives would need to be clarified and discussed. But not now, we have to finalize the document first. What we need to discuss is the possibility to set up a kind of "CS plenary", like we had during WSIS (and that worked pretty well), where all individuals, NGOs, other kind of CSO groups, and maybe their grouping into thematic caucuses can interact. But this, again, is a long term discussion, and our priority now is to finalize the document. As for now, my opinion is that, following Jeremy's proposal below, we might change the wordings so that the document takes into account Heather's concern (which are very much valid) and at the same time doesn't radically downsize IGC feature, role and achievements to that of any NGO or CSO. Above all, the document shouldn't come at this step with any alternative, like CONGO or any other. There is no need to hurry in this document with a definitive architecture for CS representation at IGF. Let's be cautious here, let's leave the door open, while asking for some change. Best, Meryem Le 7 oct. 10 à 05:20, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : On 06/10/2010, at 11:58 PM, Heather Creech wrote: I want to raise concern about one specific point in the draft, which falls under question 2. This concerns the relationship between the IGC, civil society concerned with internet governance / the IGF, and civil society in general. The draft suggests that: "With its existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes, the Internet Governance Caucus could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society MAG representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints." It adds that this could also be achieved through an independent NomCom process. It was in anticipation of concerns such as yours that I worded it "could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select" rather than just "could select". I consider that this is a fair statement of an appropriate role for the IGC within a potentially broader civil society coalition, in that we have much greater expertise and interest in IG issues than >90% of the NGOs who are active in CONGO. But, please suggest specific wording that would further clarify the IGC's role. -- 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. -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director association for progressive communications www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From meryem at marzouki.info Thu Oct 7 09:47:04 2010 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 15:47:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] French Constitutional Council - French ccTLD Message-ID: <1FFBF28F-2F04-4BE2-92E5-64B27FBF4689@marzouki.info> Hi all, A very important ruling was published yesterday by the French Constitutional Council on the .fr management. This is in the framework of the new procedure, where one can question the constitutionality of an already adopted law, in the course of legal proceedings related to the application of this law. The plaintiff was questioning the constitutionality of an article of the telecommunication code, adopted as part of the French e-commerce law (2004), and related to the transfer to the AFNIC the whole management of .fr domain names, including through the establishment and application of the naming charter. The council ruled that this article is unconstitutional, in that the legislator, by only providing that the domain names should be attributed "in view of the general interest, according to non discriminatory rules made publicly available and ensuring the respect, by the domain name holder, of intellectual property rights", has not guaranteed the freedom of communication and the freedom of entrepreneurship (both in case of domain name attribution and removal, e.g. following a UDRP procedure -- there is one for the .fr. The major outcome of this decision is the constitutional recognition that domain names have not only an interllectual property value, but also a value in terms of freedom of expression and communication as well as in terms of freedom of entrepreneurship (when a domain name is e.g. transferred or removed). In its ruling, the Council makes reference to its decision on HADOPI/ 3 strikes law, where it already affirmed the freedom to access the Internet. The whole documents are (in French as for now) at: http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/ francais/les-decisions/acces-par-date/decisions- depuis-1959/2010/2010-45-qpc/decision-n-2010-45-qpc-du-06- octobre-2010.49663.html Best, Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Oct 7 09:47:01 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 19:17:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 In-Reply-To: <812978.37580.qm@web25903.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <4C9DE370.9040108@gmail.com> <4CA1EAA8.20007@gih.com> <812978.37580.qm@web25903.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Jean Paul Thank You for your good words. :) Sivasubramanian M On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA < nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr> wrote: > Hello Sivasubramanian, > > Congratulation for this successful remote hub in Chennai. I am especially > touched by this big logistics. I can understand it was a big event. > Regards > > > NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul > > Tel : +257 79 981459 > > > ------------------------------ > *De :* Sivasubramanian M > *À :* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tim Davies < > tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk> > *Cc :* Adam Peake > *Envoyé le :* Mar 5 octobre 2010, 21h 21min 50s > *Objet :* Re: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 > > Hello, > > We organized a hub at Chennai, which was initially meant to be a small room > for 30 people sponsored by GreatLakes Institute of Managment, > but after we met with the management of this School of Management, they > committed a lot more resources - made available a world class Smart > Classroom for 60 participants, ample bandwidth, a large auditorium for 300 > for occasional meetings, transportation facilities for participants from the > city, and as many rooms as we wanted for those who chose to stay. > > This is a very serious business school with an amazingly loaded time-table > that kept students occupied at least until midnight seven days a week, but > still class room were realigned to accommodate participation. Over a > hundred students took turns to participate in the various sessions. > > > http://isocmadras.blogspot.com/2010/09/igf-remote-participation-hub-at-great.html > > This was also an occasion to invite youth participation in the IGF: > > http://isocmadras.blogspot.com/2010/09/youth-participation-in-internet.html > > The Isoc Chennai hub at GreatLakes http://greatlakes.edu.in/ is an > experiment which indicates that academic Institutions can play a pivotal > role in enhancing youth participation in Internet Governance. It felt good > to be with the students who organized and took part in the IGF hub. > > Those working on improving youth participation may draw the attention of > academic institutions to the role of GreatLakes in facilitating the Chennai > hub. > > > Sivasubramanian M > http://turiya.co.in > > http://www.isocmadras.com > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > > > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Tim Davies < > tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk> wrote: > >> This highlights a useful distinction to think about when planning >> developments of Remote Participation: how much development of RP should >> focus on technical development - and how much on developing the facilitation >> process and the skills/awareness of remote participation amongst panellists >> and participants. >> >> (E.g. We tried to get a information sheet on the online social reporting >> process into the delegate bags this year... and trying to do similar with a >> one-page description of Remote Participation and how people physically in >> the room can best support effective RP in delegates packs for IGF11 / >> information on posters outside rooms... may go a long way to helping the >> process - as right now often physical participants are unaware of what RP is >> / is like.) >> >> I get the sense a big part of effective RP this year was about having >> skilled and engaged facilitators at both ends of the connection... and >> continuing to develop the role of these facilitators may be a worthwhile >> area to think about. >> >> Tim >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> The facilities made available for remote participation were amazing: >>> video and real time transcripts from every room a great achievement. >>> >>> During security, openness, privacy session Kieren did a very good job of >>> bringing in the remote hubs and also telling us of how many people were >>> there in a particular place: 44 people in Dhaka, naming the hubs that were >>> following and chatting. Gave a good sense that we weren't alone in the room, >>> the hubs started to became a real people rather than something off in the >>> ether. >>> >>> Suggest next time each of the hubs and moderators are encouraged to find >>> out who is online, how many, where are they. Make them more real. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> Olivier's well documented challenges here are quite real. >>>> >>>> Not wanting to simplify the problem too much ... but it might be useful >>>> to break this down to its most fundamental. To me, from both a technical and >>>> business view, it appears to be a matter of perspective and priority. >>>> >>>> For this to really work and for the technicians to fully "get" what the >>>> objectives are, each IGF Workshop or Event should, in fact, >>>> be philosophically treated as an old school "Webinar", in a manner of >>>> speaking, as opposed to a dealing with it as an in situ event/workshop with >>>> Remote Participants being seen as the "outsiders". >>>> >>>> I expect that if we adopt this perspective then the most basic issues of >>>> how to best wire the PA systems, how remote participants engage with the >>>> Event as equals (for eg. simple things as whether the presentation being >>>> viewed in situ is the identical to and moves at the same speed as the one in >>>> the possession of the Remote Moderation "hat") will actually be resolved >>>> relatively easily ... putting the more logistical issues of bandwidth, >>>> delays, acoustics etc. aside for the moment. >>>> >>>> Of course, having the actual architects/engineers of the Remote >>>> Participation technology engaged at all stages (including in situ) will also >>>> be more than useful. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Tracy >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> http://www.timdavies.org.uk >> 07834 856 303. >> @timdavies >> >> Co-director of Practical Participation: >> http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk >> -------------------------- >> Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - >> #5381958. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Thu Oct 7 10:03:05 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:03:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <4CAD7D6C.2050707@itforchange.net> References: <4CAC25EF.8040806@itforchange.net> ,<4CAD7D6C.2050707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF3A1@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> agreed with parminder, especially since with some sort of blessing (?) I will explore backdoor/p2p engineering to route Wolfgang's messages to ....(in my individual capacity) ________________________________________ From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 3:57 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] SECOND DRAFT response to MAG questionnaire On Wednesday 06 October 2010 01:40 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 06/10/2010, at 3:31 PM, parminder wrote: On the question 6. How best to link with international processes and institutions? I think we need to propose ways beyond ensuring circulation of information. We should ask for real policy related engagements, whereby the IGF is able to give recs to these institutions in their area of policy making competence, and these other institutions are encouraged to bring policy issues on which they will like to have a larger debate/ dialogue to the IGF, and the IGF then reverts back on outcomes of the discussion/ dialogue. I also read some such intention in the Tunis Agenda para on IGF mandate. You'll note that at the top of my email I claimed that I had added new text to the answer to question 6 about this, but in fact I had accidentally omitted it and the text was identical to the first draft. Here is what I had intended to add, based on suggested text from July, but you may have something better to contribute. "In either case, such summaries transmitted from the IGF need not take the form of recommendations (though in the rare event that a rough consensus had been reached on a particular issue, there is no reason why they couldn't take that form). Tunis Agenda expressly includes making recommendations among IGF's tasks. I see no reason why we should say ' need not take the form of recommendations' and make it look like a very unlikely possibility, rather seeking clearer action to realise that part of IGF's mandate. Comments like the ones we propose to give, especially at hot moments of actual policy/ resolution writing get first of all seen in their general intent. What we are saying would basically be taken to mean that the IGC is generally cynical vis a vis possibilities of recommendations by the IGF. That is quite retrograde, in my view, especially in an environment when today there seems to be somewhat more openness to speak about possible recs, and how they can happen. I dont think we should include the above text at all. Parminder A emerging model for this process is found in the "messages" or "recommendations" produced by national IGFs such IGF-D (Deutschland), and regional IGFs such as the East African IGF and EURODIG. Ideally this would become a two-way process in which the institutions addressed could also turn to the IGF with issues they wished the IGF to address through multi-stakeholder dialogue." Also, point noted on the subsidiarity issue. I'll remove that from the next version, unless others wish to speak up with a compelling counter-argument (Baudouin, perhaps? - that text was loosely based on your comments). -- 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 kichango at gmail.com Thu Oct 7 13:45:58 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 13:45:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] French Constitutional Council - French ccTLD In-Reply-To: <1FFBF28F-2F04-4BE2-92E5-64B27FBF4689@marzouki.info> References: <1FFBF28F-2F04-4BE2-92E5-64B27FBF4689@marzouki.info> Message-ID: Hi, It appears that the plaintiff was making a negative case (certainly a pre-emptive one as may often the case when the mere constitutionality of a law is the question). That is: property, communication and entrepreneurship rights guaranteed by the constitution may be infringed due to the *absence* of safeguards in the law that gives the Administration and its designee a carte blanche regarding the assignment and management of domain names under .fr. The Posts and Electronic Communications law refers to the intellectual properties (presumably of others) which domain name holders are expected to respect. It is not clear to me whether they mean to suggest there are intellectual property claims to be had over the domain names themselves (and I'm not sure either that's what you're saying they meant, Meryem, as your related statement might suggest). To my understanding, the Council recognizes here that the Internet including the management of its domain names may have a significant impact on existing constitutional rights (property, communication and entrepreneurship). Therefore, a law that codifies the authority of managing the Internet domain names would need to include more protection for those constitutional rights than a minimal and vague clause that only requires a management in the general interest, according to non-discriminatory rules and provided that domain name registrants respect property rights. In concluding, the Council gives the government until July 1, 2011 to amend or in fact repeal the law. Starting from that date, any decisions taken by the government and its designees pursuant to that legislation will be deemed unlawful (in the mean time, decisions taken before then cannot be challenged on the basis of this ruling). The case is about .fr ccTLD. However, in the event the distinction registry/registrars applies here regardless of the labels used (it seems at times in the wording of the ruling that several entities are concerned with managing the .fr), I would assume that the original law and this ruling by the Constitutional Council are applicable to all the .fr wholesale and retailing business -- as opposed to only the ccTLD administrator/ registry. Another question is, how much of this ruling might be relevant/applicable in the case of gTLD names used by French citizens in usages and business related to their property, communication and entrepreneurship rights? Best, Mawaki On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Hi all, > > A very important ruling was published yesterday by the French > Constitutional Council on the .fr management. This is in the framework of > the new procedure, where one can question the constitutionality of an > already adopted law, in the course of legal proceedings related to the > application of this law. > > The plaintiff was questioning the constitutionality of an article of the > telecommunication code, adopted as part of the French e-commerce law (2004), > and related to the transfer to the AFNIC the whole management of .fr domain > names, including through the establishment and application of the naming > charter. > > The council ruled that this article is unconstitutional, in that the > legislator, by only providing that the domain names should be attributed "in > view of the general interest, according to non discriminatory rules made > publicly available and ensuring the respect, by the domain name holder, of > intellectual property rights", has not guaranteed the freedom of > communication and the freedom of entrepreneurship (both in case of domain > name attribution and removal, e.g. following a UDRP procedure -- there is > one for the .fr. > > The major outcome of this decision is the constitutional recognition that > domain names have not only an interllectual property value, but also a value > in terms of freedom of expression and communication as well as in terms of > freedom of entrepreneurship (when a domain name is e.g. transferred or > removed). > > In its ruling, the Council makes reference to its decision on HADOPI/3 > strikes law, where it already affirmed the freedom to access the Internet. > > The whole documents are (in French as for now) at: > > http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/acces-par-date/decisions-depuis-1959/2010/2010-45-qpc/decision-n-2010-45-qpc-du-06-octobre-2010.49663.html > > Best, > Meryem > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > 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 meryem at marzouki.info Thu Oct 7 17:31:38 2010 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 23:31:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] French Constitutional Council - French ccTLD In-Reply-To: References: <1FFBF28F-2F04-4BE2-92E5-64B27FBF4689@marzouki.info> Message-ID: <621E7BE9-8D44-4D86-A990-99D9BC2A3D98@marzouki.info> Hi Mawaki, Le 7 oct. 10 à 19:45, Mawaki Chango a écrit : > It appears that the plaintiff was making a negative case (certainly > a pre-emptive one as may often the case when the mere > constitutionality of a law is the question). That is: property, > communication and entrepreneurship rights guaranteed by the > constitution may be infringed due to the *absence* of safeguards in > the law that gives the Administration and its designee a carte > blanche regarding the assignment and management of domain names > under .fr. Yes, exactly, this is called 'incompétence du législateur' in French, referring to Art.34 of the French Constitution, which is about the fact that freedoms can only be limited by law, i.e. not by an administrative or a private body. In this case, AFNIC the French registry, established by an administrative act ("arrêté") has the power to limit freedoms through, inter alia, its naming charter. FYI, the plaintiff first challenged the administrative act before the Conseil d'Êtat, then, in the course of this proceedings, raised the constitutionality question. It has to be noted that the question was considered receivable by the Conseil d'Etat, thus transferred to the Constitutional Council (as there are filters in this procedure, before one reaches the Constitutional Council). > The Posts and Electronic Communications law refers to the > intellectual properties (presumably of others) which domain name > holders are expected to respect. It is not clear to me whether they > mean to suggest there are intellectual property claims to be had > over the domain names themselves (and I'm not sure either that's > what you're saying they meant, Meryem, as your related statement > might suggest). The law refers to the fact that when you register a .fr, you have to show that you've intellectual property rights over the name you register (such as bylaws, trademark registration, etc.). AFNIC charter is at: http://www.afnic.fr/data/chartes/charte- fr-2010-03-16.pdf. If it's the name of an individual, you have to be French citizen or to live in the country, and of course to show that it's your name. > To my understanding, the Council recognizes here that the Internet > including the management of its domain names may have a significant > impact on existing constitutional rights (property, communication > and entrepreneurship). Therefore, a law that codifies the authority > of managing the Internet domain names would need to include more > protection for those constitutional rights than a minimal and vague > clause that only requires a management in the general interest, > according to non-discriminatory rules and provided that domain name > registrants respect property rights. Exactly. > In concluding, the Council gives the government until July 1, 2011 > to amend or in fact repeal the law. > Starting from that date, any decisions taken by the government and > its designees pursuant to that legislation will be deemed unlawful > (in the mean time, decisions taken before then cannot be challenged > on the basis of this ruling). This is because the annulment of the law article makes the AFNIC illegal. You can figure out the mess if it takes immediate effect. The Council says it explicitely that, with this delay, it gives the Parliament the time to modify adequately the law, so that the AFNIC is still legal but with stricter less flexibility on the domain naming conditions. Thus, the delay ensures legal continuity and security of the French domain names system. > The case is about .fr ccTLD. Note that this also applies to the .re (Reunion Island), .pm (Saint- Pierre et Miquelon), .tf (French southern and antarctic territories), .wf (Wallis and Futuna), .yt (Mayotte), which are managed by AFNIC as well; while .mq (Martinique), .gp (Guadeloupe), .gf (French Guyana) are delegated to a registrar, and .nc (New Caledonia) and .pf (French Polynesia) are administrated by the respective territories -- well, that's rather complex, different political and administrative status. > However, in the event the distinction registry/registrars applies > here regardless of the labels used (it seems at times in the > wording of the ruling that several entities are concerned with > managing the .fr), I would assume that the original law and this > ruling by the Constitutional Council are applicable to all the .fr > wholesale and retailing business -- as opposed to only the ccTLD > administrator/ registry. I don't understand what you mean here? The decisions applies to the registry, not the registrars. The art. 45 of the law that was found unconstitutional speaks of the "national territory". This territory includes e.g. Martinique, which is not managed by AFNIC, but by a registrar by delegation. This registrar here acts, exceptionally, as a registry. The ruling doesn't concern registrars in their usual functions. > > Another question is, how much of this ruling might be relevant/ > applicable in the case of gTLD names used by French citizens in > usages and business related to their property, communication and > entrepreneurship rights? The ruling is an annulment of a given law article (art. 45 of the Posts and Telecommunications code), thus concerns the registries designated by this article. It doesn't extend to gTLDs, whether used by French citizens or not. From a legal point of view, there is no application to any gTLD nor to anyother ccTLD than those mentioned above. From a political point of view, hovewer, one can hope such a ruling might be used those who would like to see more respect for fundamental freedoms in ccTLDs and gTLDs management. Best, Meryem > > Best, > > Mawaki > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Meryem Marzouki > wrote: > Hi all, > > A very important ruling was published yesterday by the French > Constitutional Council on the .fr management. This is in the > framework of the new procedure, where one can question the > constitutionality of an already adopted law, in the course of legal > proceedings related to the application of this law. > > The plaintiff was questioning the constitutionality of an article > of the telecommunication code, adopted as part of the French e- > commerce law (2004), and related to the transfer to the AFNIC the > whole management of .fr domain names, including through the > establishment and application of the naming charter. > > The council ruled that this article is unconstitutional, in that > the legislator, by only providing that the domain names should be > attributed "in view of the general interest, according to non > discriminatory rules made publicly available and ensuring the > respect, by the domain name holder, of intellectual property > rights", has not guaranteed the freedom of communication and the > freedom of entrepreneurship (both in case of domain name > attribution and removal, e.g. following a UDRP procedure -- there > is one for the .fr. > > The major outcome of this decision is the constitutional > recognition that domain names have not only an interllectual > property value, but also a value in terms of freedom of expression > and communication as well as in terms of freedom of > entrepreneurship (when a domain name is e.g. transferred or removed). > > In its ruling, the Council makes reference to its decision on > HADOPI/3 strikes law, where it already affirmed the freedom to > access the Internet. > > The whole documents are (in French as for now) at: > http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/ > francais/les-decisions/acces-par-date/decisions- > depuis-1959/2010/2010-45-qpc/decision-n-2010-45-qpc-du-06- > octobre-2010.49663.html > > Best, > Meryem > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Thu Oct 7 20:06:49 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 20:06:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Responses to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF3A1@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4CAC25EF.8040806@itforchange.net> ,<4CAD7D6C.2050707@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF3A1@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi, Just wanted to point out, that in addition to a collective response from the IGC, responses from individuals and the other groups among the IGC members and participants are also encouraged. One thing to remember is that the only way topics get put in the synthesis report that will come out before the meeting is for someone to have mentioned it in a contribution. So if you want an idea included in the initial mix, get it sent written up, individually, with others, with a group or with the IGC and send it in by the new deadline - 24 October to igf at unog.ch. a. (yes, i am working now) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 7 21:47:00 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 09:47:00 +0800 Subject: [governance] THIRD draft response to MAG questionnaire Message-ID: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> (If you have a graphical mail client, you'll see the changes underlined or struck through. These will also be visible in the Web archive copy.) 1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions? The IGC broadly supports the continuation of a balanced multistakeholder advisory group. In its current role, the MAG has performed reasonably. However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads where it may be called upon to produce more tangible outputs. The qualification of the MAG to steer the IGF through this challenging phase of its evolution is less clear. We would like the MAG to play an active role in any possible improvements towards a greater outcome orientation that may be suggested by the ongoing IGF improvement process. Since there is no other clear body or structure in and of the IGF, any possible suggestions for improvements like inter-sessional work, choosing of key issues for more focussed work, working groups on issues, background papers etc will require the MAG to play an important part. To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, the IGF may require more direct lines of accountability to its constituencies, more balanced sectoral representation, and proactive leadership. Reducing the size of the MAG might also improve its effectiveness. Moreover, MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for multistakeholder comment and participation, in a variety of other institutions, processes and fora, both online and offline. Opening up meetings of the MAG to observers, either face to face or remotely, could also assist in making it more accessible and responsive to the broader community. Finally we ask that when the MAG prepares the IGF's agenda, it should prioritise issues which directly concern the interests of marginalized groups, as they and those working with them (rather than just technical experts) see these issues. This in turn requires that these marginalised groups should be better represented on the MAG. 2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG? As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary for it to become more accountable. Part of this process may involve moving on from the existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary General selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by various parties, pursuant to selection criteria that are not published. An alternative approach that many from civil society support is the selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process driven by the stakeholder groups, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints. Although civil society broadly agrees on this general principle, various different models for implementing are being debated. These include the reestablishment of a civil society umbrella group such as the WSIS civil society plenary, the use of an independent nominating committee, or the assignment of a role to the Internet Governance Caucus itself, whose existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes provide a good model for a broader nominating group. [DELETED/REWORKED: WIth its existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes, the Internet Governanc Caucus could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society MAG representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints. This could be done through an independent nominating committee, though there is some division within civil society on that question.] Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special privileges that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, and special advisors to the chair, currently possess. If the MAG's processes are opened to broader oversight by the community, such special privileges would soon become redundant. 3. How best to nominate the MAG Chair? At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN Secretary-General. This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG develops into a body whose members are self-selected by the stakeholders. In that case, it could be that the MAG should select its own chair or chairs, and for that position to rotate between the stakeholder groups. In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the role of the Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder agenda, but to facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de facto multi-stakeholder bureau for the IGF that is responsible for facilitating the fulfilment of the mandate in the Tunis Agenda. 4. How best to organize open consultations? There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as meetings held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation from around the world, but as meetings that are held online, with provision for some participants to attend in person at a hub in Geneva, or at other hubs. Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves could come to be considered in the same terms. Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously (ie. through comments and discussions that are contributed over an extended period through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on). It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise an electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF participants as means of contributing to open consultations. In particular, MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity to online discussions outside of their closed mailing list, which limits the profile and accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a whole. 5. How best to link with regional meetings? The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance to a much broader community of Internet users and citizens, but at the same time we must be careful to ensure that these meetings meet the same basic process criteria as the IGF itself, including adequate participation by civil society at all levels. In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to governance processes than governmental and private sector groups, due to funding constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour. This may require that additional efforts be made (and funded where appropriate) to ensure that a plurality of civil society voices are heard in Internet governance processes. [DELETED: We also suggest that consideration be given to the principle of subsidiarity as a guideline for the IGF's relationship with regional IGFs. That is to say that a regional IGF will subsume all national concerns in order to build a regional position, and global issues will be predominantly the concern of the global IGF.] 6. How best to link with international processes and institutions? Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to bridge between online and offline discussions, so too there could be rapporteurs whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at the IGF and to forward them to external institutions, and to act as a conduit for feedback from those institutions. Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and workshops, since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in the latter. Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions provided that a better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops back into main sessions is realised. A emerging model for this process (though other possible models may also be explored) is found in the "messages" or "recommendations" produced by national IGFs such IGF-D (Deutschland), and regional IGFs such as the East African IGF and EURODIG. Ideally this would become a two-way process in which the institutions addressed could also turn to the IGF with issues they wished the IGF to address through multi-stakeholder dialogue. -- 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 pbekono at gmail.com Fri Oct 8 00:15:47 2010 From: pbekono at gmail.com (Pascal Bekono) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 05:15:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] THIRD draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hello Jeremy, Thank you for this new update. I agree with all corrections made. best, ~Pascal 2010/10/8, Jeremy Malcolm : > (If you have a graphical mail client, you'll see the changes underlined or > struck through. These will also be visible in the Web archive copy.) > > 1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the > Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions? > > The IGC broadly supports the continuation of a balanced multistakeholder > advisory group. In its current role, the MAG has performed reasonably. > However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads where it may be called upon to > produce more tangible outputs. The qualification of the MAG to steer the > IGF through this challenging phase of its evolution is less clear. > > We would like the MAG to play an active role in any possible improvements > towards a greater outcome orientation that may be suggested by the ongoing > IGF improvement process. Since there is no other clear body or structure in > and of the IGF, any possible suggestions for improvements like > inter-sessional work, choosing of key issues for more focussed work, working > groups on issues, background papers etc will require the MAG to play an > important part. > > To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, the IGF may > require more direct lines of accountability to its constituencies, more > balanced sectoral representation, and proactive leadership. Reducing the > size of the MAG might also improve its effectiveness. > > Moreover, MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for > multistakeholder comment and participation, in a variety of other > institutions, processes and fora, both online and offline. Opening up > meetings of the MAG to observers, either face to face or remotely, could > also assist in making it more accessible and responsive to the broader > community. > > Finally we ask that when the MAG prepares the IGF's agenda, it should > prioritise issues which directly concern the interests of marginalized > groups, as they and those working with them (rather than just technical > experts) see these issues. This in turn requires that these marginalised > groups should be better represented on the MAG. > > 2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG? > > As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary for it to > become more accountable. Part of this process may involve moving on from > the existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary > General selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by various > parties, pursuant to selection criteria that are not published. > > An alternative approach that many from civil society support is the > selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process driven by the > stakeholder groups, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and > gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints. > > Although civil society broadly agrees on this general principle, various > different models for implementing are being debated. These include the > reestablishment of a civil society umbrella group such as the WSIS civil > society plenary, the use of an independent nominating committee, or the > assignment of a role to the Internet Governance Caucus itself, whose > existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes provide a > good model for a broader nominating group. > > [DELETED/REWORKED: WIth its existing open, accountable, transparent and > democratic processes, the Internet Governanc Caucus could form the > foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society MAG > representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and > gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints. This could be done through an > independent nominating committee, though there is some division within civil > society on that question.] > > Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special privileges > that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, and special > advisors to the chair, currently possess. If the MAG's processes are opened > to broader oversight by the community, such special privileges would soon > become redundant. > > 3. How best to nominate the MAG Chair? > > At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN > Secretary-General. This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG develops > into a body whose members are self-selected by the stakeholders. In that > case, it could be that the MAG should select its own chair or chairs, and > for that position to rotate between the stakeholder groups. > > In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the role of the > Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder agenda, but to > facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de facto multi-stakeholder > bureau for the IGF that is responsible for facilitating the fulfilment of > the mandate in the Tunis Agenda. > > 4. How best to organize open consultations? > > There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as meetings > held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation from around the > world, but as meetings that are held online, with provision for some > participants to attend in person at a hub in Geneva, or at other hubs. > Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves could come to be considered in the same > terms. > > Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation > both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously (ie. through > comments and discussions that are contributed over an extended period > through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on). > > It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise an > electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of > asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF > participants as means of contributing to open consultations. In particular, > MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity to online discussions > outside of their closed mailing list, which limits the profile and > accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a whole. > > 5. How best to link with regional meetings? > > The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the multi-stakeholder > model of Internet governance to a much broader community of Internet users > and citizens, but at the same time we must be careful to ensure that these > meetings meet the same basic process criteria as the IGF itself, including > adequate participation by civil society at all levels. > > In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to governance > processes than governmental and private sector groups, due to funding > constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour. This may require that > additional efforts be made (and funded where appropriate) to ensure that a > plurality of civil society voices are heard in Internet governance > processes. > > [DELETED: We also suggest that consideration be given to the principle of > subsidiarity as a guideline for the IGF's relationship with regional IGFs. > That is to say that a regional IGF will subsume all national concerns in > order to build a regional position, and global issues will be predominantly > the concern of the global IGF.] > > 6. How best to link with international processes and institutions? > > Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to bridge > between online and offline discussions, so too there could be rapporteurs > whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at the IGF and to > forward them to external institutions, and to act as a conduit for feedback > from those institutions. > > Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and workshops, > since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in the latter. > Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions provided that a > better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops back into main sessions > is realised. > > A emerging model for this process (though other possible models may also be > explored) is found in the "messages" or "recommendations" produced by > national IGFs such IGF-D (Deutschland), and regional IGFs such as the East > African IGF and EURODIG. Ideally this would become a two-way process in > which the institutions addressed could also turn to the IGF with issues they > wished the IGF to address through multi-stakeholder dialogue. > > -- > 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 david.souter at runbox.com Fri Oct 8 08:34:42 2010 From: david.souter at runbox.com (David Souter) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:34:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] THIRD draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <002901cb66e5$2efede30$8cfc9a90$@souter@runbox.com> In view of discussion earlier on Q2, it's important that any text submitted speaks for the IGC and does not presume to speak for civil society in general. This is clear in the response to Q1, but not in that to Q2. The third para under Q2 should begin "Although members of the IGC broadly agree", or "Although the IGC believes that civil society broadly agrees", rather than its current wording. DS 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 and Political Science 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: 08 October 2010 02:47 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] THIRD draft response to MAG questionnaire (If you have a graphical mail client, you'll see the changes underlined or struck through. These will also be visible in the Web archive copy.) 1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions? The IGC broadly supports the continuation of a balanced multistakeholder advisory group. In its current role, the MAG has performed reasonably. However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads where it may be called upon to produce more tangible outputs. The qualification of the MAG to steer the IGF through this challenging phase of its evolution is less clear. We would like the MAG to play an active role in any possible improvements towards a greater outcome orientation that may be suggested by the ongoing IGF improvement process. Since there is no other clear body or structure in and of the IGF, any possible suggestions for improvements like inter-sessional work, choosing of key issues for more focussed work, working groups on issues, background papers etc will require the MAG to play an important part. To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, the IGF may require more direct lines of accountability to its constituencies, more balanced sectoral representation, and proactive leadership. Reducing the size of the MAG might also improve its effectiveness. Moreover, MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for multistakeholder comment and participation, in a variety of other institutions, processes and fora, both online and offline. Opening up meetings of the MAG to observers, either face to face or remotely, could also assist in making it more accessible and responsive to the broader community. Finally we ask that when the MAG prepares the IGF's agenda, it should prioritise issues which directly concern the interests of marginalized groups, as they and those working with them (rather than just technical experts) see these issues. This in turn requires that these marginalised groups should be better represented on the MAG. 2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG? As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary for it to become more accountable. Part of this process may involve moving on from the existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary General selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by various parties, pursuant to selection criteria that are not published. An alternative approach that many from civil society support is the selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process driven by the stakeholder groups, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints . Although civil society broadly agrees on this general principle, various different models for implementing are being debated. These include the reestablishment of a civil society umbrella group such as the WSIS civil society plenary, the use of an independent nominating committee, or the assignment of a role to the Internet Governance Caucus itself, whose existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes provide a good model for a broader nominating group. [ DELETED/REWORKED: W Ith its existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes, the Internet Governanc Caucus could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society MAG representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints. This could be done through an independent nominating committee, though there is some division within civil society on that question.] Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special privileges that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, and special advisors to the chair, currently possess. If the MAG's processes are opened to broader oversight by the community, such special privileges would soon become redundant. 3. How best to nominate the MAG Chair? At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN Secretary-General. This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG develops into a body whose members are self-selected by the stakeholders. In that case, it could be that the MAG should select its own chair or chairs, and for that position to rotate between the stakeholder groups. In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the role of the Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder agenda, but to facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de facto multi-stakeholder bureau for the IGF that is responsible for facilitating the fulfilment of the mandate in the Tunis Agenda. 4. How best to organize open consultations? There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as meetings held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation from around the world, but as meetings that are held online, with provision for some participants to attend in person at a hub in Geneva, or at other hubs. Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves could come to be considered in the same terms. Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously (ie. through comments and discussions that are contributed over an extended period through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on). It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise an electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF participants as means of contributing to open consultations. In particular, MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity to online discussions outside of their closed mailing list, which limits the profile and accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a whole. 5. How best to link with regional meetings? The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance to a much broader community of Internet users and citizens, but at the same time we must be careful to ensure that these meetings meet the same basic process criteria as the IGF itself, including adequate participation by civil society at all levels . In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to governance processes than governmental and private sector groups, due to funding constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour. This may require that additional efforts be made (and funded where appropriate) to ensure that a plurality of civil society voices are heard in Internet governance processes. [DELETED: We also suggest that consideration be given to the principle of subsidiarity as a guideline for the IGF's relationship with regional IGFs. That is to say that a regional IGF will subsume all national concerns in order to build a regional position, and global issues will be predominantly the concern of the global IGF.] 6. How best to link with international processes and institutions? Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to bridge between online and offline discussions, so too there could be rapporteurs whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at the IGF and to forward them to external institutions, and to act as a conduit for feedback from those institutions. Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and workshops, since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in the latter. Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions provided that a better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops back into main sessions is realised. A emerging model for this process (though other possible models may also be explored) is found in the "messages" or "recommendations" produced by national IGFs such IGF-D (Deutschland), and regional IGFs such as the East African IGF and EURODIG. Ideally this would become a two-way process in which the institutions addressed could also turn to the IGF with issues they wished the IGF to address through multi-stakeholder dialogue. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Oct 8 08:54:58 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 21:54:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] THIRD draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <-4752932783465599157@unknownmsgid> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <-4752932783465599157@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Thank you Jeremy for your continued hard work. I share a similar concern on the role of IGC with the whole CS group. I was one of the NomCom members to suggest candidates for WGIG, (long time ago), and that time there was Civil Society Bureau, with many other caucuses and groups on different themes. We sent a call for nomination to all of them and received good responses, but there still was some concerns or criticism as to why IGC takes such a role. That time any other group could also send nominations thus we were not the only channel on behalf of CS. Similarly, I think it is safer to say something like "IGC is ready to work together with other CS groups to send nominations". or IGC is ready to coordinate nominations for the Civil society, but we are also open to other ways to work together" etc. I do not insist on specific wording, but appreciate if you could consider these ideas. izumi 2010/10/8 David Souter : > In view of discussion earlier on Q2, it’s important that any text submitted > speaks for the IGC and does not presume to speak for civil society in > general. > > > > This is clear in the response to Q1, but not in that to Q2.  The third para > under Q2 should begin “Although members of the IGC broadly agree”, or > “Although the IGC believes that civil society broadly agrees”, rather than > its current wording. > > > > DS > > > > > > 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 and Political Science > > 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: 08 October 2010 02:47 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] THIRD draft response to MAG questionnaire > > > > (If you have a graphical mail client, you'll see the changes underlined or > struck through.  These will also be visible in the Web archive copy.) > > > > 1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the > Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions? > > > > The IGC broadly supports the continuation of a balanced multistakeholder > advisory group. In its current role, the MAG has performed reasonably. >  However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads where it may be called upon to > produce more tangible outputs.  The qualification of the MAG to steer the > IGF through this challenging phase of its evolution is less clear. > > > > We would like the MAG to play an active role in any possible improvements > towards a greater outcome orientation that may be suggested by the > ongoing IGF improvement process. Since there is no other clear body or > structure in and of the IGF, any possible suggestions for improvements like > inter-sessional work, choosing of key issues for more focussed work, working > groups on issues, background papers etc will require the MAG to play an > important part. > > > > To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, the IGF may > require more direct lines of accountability to its constituencies, more > balanced sectoral representation, and proactive leadership.  Reducing the > size of the MAG might also improve its effectiveness. > > > > Moreover, MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for > multistakeholder comment and participation, in a variety of other > institutions, processes and fora, both online and offline.  Opening up > meetings of the MAG to observers, either face to face or remotely, could > also assist in making it more accessible and responsive to the broader > community. > > > > Finally we ask that when the MAG prepares the IGF's agenda, it should > prioritise issues which directly concern the interests of marginalized > groups, as they and those working with them (rather than just technical > experts) see these issues.  This in turn requires that these marginalised > groups should be better represented on the MAG. > > > > 2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG? > > > > As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary for it to > become more accountable.  Part of this process may involve moving on from > the > > existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary General > selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by various parties, > pursuant to selection criteria that are not published. > > > > An alternative approach that many from civil society > > support > >  is the selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process driven > by the stakeholder groups, > > subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a > diversity of viewpoints > > . > > > > Although civil society broadly agrees on this general principle, various > different models for implementing are being debated.  These include > > the reestablishment of a civil society umbrella group such as the WSIS civil > society plenary, the use of an independent nominating committee, or the > assignment of a role to > > the Internet Governance Caucus itself, whose existing open, accountable, > transparent and democratic processes provide a good model for a broader > nominating group. > > > > [ > > DELETED/REWORKED: > > W > > Ith its existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes, > >  the Internet Governanc Caucus could form the foundation of an appropriate > body to select civil society MAG representatives, subject to appropriate > criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of > viewpoints.  This could be done through an independent nominating committee, > though there is some division within civil society on that question.] > > > > Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special privileges > that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, and special > advisors to the chair, currently possess.  If the MAG's processes are opened > to broader oversight by the community, such special privileges would soon > become redundant. > > > > 3. How best to nominate the MAG Chair? > > > > At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN > Secretary-General.  This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG develops > into a body whose members are self-selected by the stakeholders.  In that > case, it could be that the MAG should select its own chair or chairs, and > for that position to rotate between the stakeholder groups. > > > > In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the role of the > Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder agenda, but to > facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de facto multi-stakeholder > bureau for the IGF that is responsible for facilitating the fulfilment of > the mandate in the Tunis Agenda. > > > > 4. How best to organize open consultations? > > > > There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as meetings > held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation from around the > world, but as meetings that are held online, with provision for some > participants to attend in person at a hub in Geneva, or at other hubs. >  Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves could come to be considered in the same > terms. > > > > Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation > both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously (ie. through > comments and discussions that are contributed over an extended period > through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on). > > > > It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise an > electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of > asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF > participants as means of contributing to open consultations.  In particular, > MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity to online discussions > outside of their closed mailing list, which limits the profile and > accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a whole. > > > > 5. How best to link with regional meetings? > > > > The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the multi-stakeholder > model of Internet governance to a much broader community of Internet users > and citizens, but at the same time we must be careful to ensure that these > meetings meet the same basic process criteria as the IGF itself, including > adequate participation by > > civil society at all levels > > . > > > > In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to governance > processes than governmental and private sector groups, due to funding > constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour.  This may require that > additional efforts be made (and funded where appropriate) to ensure that a > plurality of civil society voices are heard in Internet governance > processes. > > > > [DELETED: We also suggest that consideration be given to the principle of > subsidiarity as a guideline for the IGF's relationship with regional IGFs. >  That is to say that a regional IGF will subsume all national concerns in > order to build a regional position, and global issues will be predominantly > the concern of the global IGF.] > > > > 6. How best to link with international processes and institutions? > > > > Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to bridge > between online and offline discussions, so too there could be rapporteurs > whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at the IGF and to > forward them to external institutions, and to act as a conduit for feedback > from those institutions. > > > > Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and workshops, > since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in the latter. >  Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions provided that a > better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops back into main sessions > is realised. > > > > A emerging model for this process (though other possible models may also be > explored) is found in the "messages" or "recommendations" produced by > national IGFs such IGF-D (Deutschland), and regional IGFs such as the East > African IGF and EURODIG.  Ideally this would become a two-way process in > which the institutions addressed could also turn to the IGF with issues they > wished the IGF to address through multi-stakeholder dialogue. > > -- > > 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 > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Oct 8 09:22:15 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 08:52:15 -0430 Subject: [governance] THIRD draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <-4752932783465599157@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <4CAF1B07.1020906@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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Oct 8 10:41:35 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:41:35 -0300 Subject: [governance] THIRD draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Congratulations to all. The text looks very good. I would like to make just two quick comments. Regarding question 5 (how to best link the IGF with regional meetings) I believe that it is important that regional meetings play a more important role in IGF agenda-setting and issue-framing. The discussions that take place during the meetings, if summarized more objectively and timely, could represent real regional contributions to the process. This does not happen today, as the results of the regional meetings are mostly publicized during the IGF in a reporting back session. The outcomes of regional meetings should also serve to better clarify and sharpen the discussions, reducing the complexity of themes into concrete issues (problems to be addressed at/by the IGF). This would be important if the IGF will be supposed to produce more concrete outcomes. Regarding question 6, I totally agree with the suggestion and I believe it is of great importance. I just think that it should be clear that the rapporteurs should also be proactive to bring into the IGF issues that are being discussed originally in other forums, if they relate to the Internet (and not only the feedbacks from these other forums about the discussions taking place in the IGF). These repporteurs should be the ones “operating the radar” and bringing issues into the attention of the IG community. Last but not least, I particularly agree with the role that remote participation can have in open consultations and MAG meetings and proceedings. And it should indeed be a continuous process, throughout the year. Best wishes, Marília On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > (If you have a graphical mail client, you'll see the changes underlined or > struck through. These will also be visible in the Web archive copy.) > * > * > *1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in > the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions?* > * > * > The IGC broadly supports the continuation of a balanced multistakeholder > advisory group. In its current role, the MAG has performed reasonably. > However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads where it may be called upon to > produce more tangible outputs. The qualification of the MAG to steer the > IGF through this challenging phase of its evolution is less clear. > > * > We would like the MAG to play an active role in any possible improvements > towards a greater outcome orientation that may be suggested by the > ongoing IGF improvement process. Since there is no other clear body or > structure in and of the IGF, any possible suggestions for improvements like > inter-sessional work, choosing of key issues for more focussed work, working > groups on issues, background papers etc will require the MAG to play an > important part. > * > * > > * > To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, the IGF may > require more direct lines of accountability to its constituencies, more > balanced sectoral representation, and proactive leadership. Reducing the > size of the MAG might also improve its effectiveness. > * > * > *Moreover, MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for > multistakeholder comment and participation, in a variety of other > institutions, processes and fora, both online and offline. Opening up > meetings of the MAG to *observers, either face to face or remotely, could > also assist in making it more accessible and responsive to the broader > community. > > *Finally we ask that when the MAG prepares the IGF's agenda, it should > prioritise issues which directly concern the interests of marginalized > groups, as they and those working with them (rather than just technical > experts) see these issues. This in turn requires that these marginalised > groups should be better represented on the MAG.* > * > * > *2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG?* > * > * > * > As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary for it > to become more accountable. Part of this process may involve moving on from > the > existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary General > selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by various parties, > pursuant to selection criteria that are not published. > > An alternative approach that many from civil society > support > is the selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process driven > by the stakeholder groups, > subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a > diversity of viewpoints > . > > Although civil society broadly agrees on this general principle, various > different models for implementing are being debated. These include > the reestablishment of a civil society umbrella group such as the WSIS > civil society plenary, the use of an independent nominating committee, or > the assignment of a role to > the Internet Governance Caucus itself, whose existing open, accountable, > transparent and democratic processes provide a good model for a broader > nominating group. > > [ > DELETED/REWORKED: > W > Ith its existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes, > the Internet Governanc Caucus could form the foundation of an appropriate > body to select civil society MAG representatives, subject to appropriate > criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of > viewpoints. This could be done through an independent nominating committee, > though there is some division within civil society on that question.] > > Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special > privileges that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, and > special advisors to the chair, currently possess. If the MAG's processes > are opened to broader oversight by the community, such special privileges > would soon become redundant. > > * > *3. **How best to nominate the MAG Chair?* > * > * > * > At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN > Secretary-General. This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG develops > into a body whose members are self-selected by the stakeholders. In that > case, it could be that the MAG should select its own chair or chairs, and > for that position to rotate between the stakeholder groups. > > * > In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the role of the > Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder agenda, but to > facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de facto multi-stakeholder > bureau for the IGF that is responsible for facilitating the fulfilment of > the mandate in the Tunis Agenda. > * > * > *4. How best to organize open consultations?* > * > * > There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as meetings > held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation from around the > world, but as meetings that are held online, with provision for some > participants to attend in person at a hub in Geneva, or at other hubs. > Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves could come to be considered in the same > terms. > > Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation > both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously (ie. through > comments and discussions that are contributed over an extended period > through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on). > > It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise an > electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of > asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF > participants as means of contributing to open consultations. In particular, > MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity to online discussions > outside of their closed mailing list, which limits the profile and > accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a whole. > * > * > *5. How best to link with regional meetings? > * > * > * > * > The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the multi-stakeholder > model of Internet governance to a much broader community of Internet users > and citizens, but at the same time we must be careful to ensure that these > meetings meet the same basic process criteria as the IGF itself, including > adequate participation by > civil society at all levels > . > > In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to > governance processes than governmental and private sector groups, due to > funding constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour. This may require > that additional efforts be made (and funded where appropriate) to ensure > that a plurality of civil society voices are heard in Internet governance > processes. > > [DELETED: We also suggest that consideration be given to the principle of > subsidiarity as a guideline for the IGF's relationship with regional IGFs. > That is to say that a regional IGF will subsume all national concerns in > order to build a regional position, and global issues will be predominantly > the concern of the global IGF.] > > * > *6. How best to link with international processes and institutions?* > * > * > *Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to bridge > between online and offline discussions, so too there could be rapporteurs > whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at the IGF and to > forward them to external institutions, and to act as a conduit for feedback > from those institutions. > > Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and workshops, > since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in the latter. > Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions provided that a > better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops back into main sessions > is realised. > > A emerging model for this process (though other possible models may also be > explored) is found in the "messages" or "recommendations" produced by > national IGFs such IGF-D (Deutschland), and regional IGFs such as the East > African IGF and EURODIG. Ideally this would become a two-way process in > which the institutions addressed could also turn to the IGF with issues they > wished the IGF to address through multi-stakeholder dialogue. > * > > -- > > *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 > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Fri Oct 8 11:26:29 2010 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 12:26:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] THIRD draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi all, I have nothing to add, but I want to say that I like this draft. Best, Roxana 2010/10/7 Jeremy Malcolm > (If you have a graphical mail client, you'll see the changes underlined > or struck through. These will also be visible in the Web archive copy.) > * > * > *1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in > the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions?* > * > * > The IGC broadly supports the continuation of a balanced multistakeholder > advisory group. In its current role, the MAG has performed reasonably. > However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads where it may be called upon to > produce more tangible outputs. The qualification of the MAG to steer the > IGF through this challenging phase of its evolution is less clear. > > * > We would like the MAG to play an active role in any possible improvements > towards a greater outcome orientation that may be suggested by the > ongoing IGF improvement process. Since there is no other clear body or > structure in and of the IGF, any possible suggestions for improvements like > inter-sessional work, choosing of key issues for more focussed work, working > groups on issues, background papers etc will require the MAG to play an > important part. > * > * > > * > To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, the IGF may > require more direct lines of accountability to its constituencies, more > balanced sectoral representation, and proactive leadership. Reducing the > size of the MAG might also improve its effectiveness. > * > * > *Moreover, MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for > multistakeholder comment and participation, in a variety of other > institutions, processes and fora, both online and offline. Opening up > meetings of the MAG to *observers, either face to face or remotely, could > also assist in making it more accessible and responsive to the broader > community. > > *Finally we ask that when the MAG prepares the IGF's agenda, it should > prioritise issues which directly concern the interests of marginalized > groups, as they and those working with them (rather than just technical > experts) see these issues. This in turn requires that these marginalised > groups should be better represented on the MAG.* > * > * > *2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG?* > * > * > * > As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary for it > to become more accountable. Part of this process may involve moving on from > the > existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary General > selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by various parties, > pursuant to selection criteria that are not published. > > An alternative approach that many from civil society > support > is the selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process driven > by the stakeholder groups, > subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance > and a diversity of viewpoints > . > > Although civil society broadly agrees on this general principle, various > different models for implementing are being debated. These include > the reestablishment of a civil society umbrella group such as the WSIS > civil society plenary, the use of an independent nominating committee, or > the assignment of a role to > the Internet Governance Caucus itself, whose existing open, accountable, > transparent and democratic processes provide a good model for a broader > nominating group. > > [ > DELETED/REWORKED: > W > Ith its existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic > processes, > the Internet Governanc Caucus could form the foundation of an appropriate > body to select civil society MAG representatives, subject to appropriate > criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of > viewpoints. This could be done through an independent nominating committee, > though there is some division within civil society on that question.] > > Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special > privileges that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, and > special advisors to the chair, currently possess. If the MAG's processes > are opened to broader oversight by the community, such special privileges > would soon become redundant. > > * > *3. **How best to nominate the MAG Chair?* > * > * > * > At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN > Secretary-General. This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG develops > into a body whose members are self-selected by the stakeholders. In that > case, it could be that the MAG should select its own chair or chairs, and > for that position to rotate between the stakeholder groups. > > * > In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the role of the > Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder agenda, but to > facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de facto multi-stakeholder > bureau for the IGF that is responsible for facilitating the fulfilment of > the mandate in the Tunis Agenda. > * > * > *4. How best to organize open consultations?* > * > * > There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as meetings > held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation from around the > world, but as meetings that are held online, with provision for some > participants to attend in person at a hub in Geneva, or at other hubs. > Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves could come to be considered in the same > terms. > > Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation > both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously (ie. through > comments and discussions that are contributed over an extended period > through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on). > > It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise an > electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of > asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF > participants as means of contributing to open consultations. In particular, > MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity to online discussions > outside of their closed mailing list, which limits the profile and > accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a whole. > * > * > *5. How best to link with regional meetings? > * > * > * > * > The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the multi-stakeholder > model of Internet governance to a much broader community of Internet users > and citizens, but at the same time we must be careful to ensure that these > meetings meet the same basic process criteria as the IGF itself, including > adequate participation by > civil society at all levels > . > > In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to > governance processes than governmental and private sector groups, due to > funding constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour. This may require > that additional efforts be made (and funded where appropriate) to ensure > that a plurality of civil society voices are heard in Internet governance > processes. > > [DELETED: We also suggest that consideration be given to the principle of > subsidiarity as a guideline for the IGF's relationship with regional IGFs. > That is to say that a regional IGF will subsume all national concerns in > order to build a regional position, and global issues will be predominantly > the concern of the global IGF.] > > * > *6. How best to link with international processes and institutions?* > * > * > *Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to bridge > between online and offline discussions, so too there could be rapporteurs > whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at the IGF and to > forward them to external institutions, and to act as a conduit for feedback > from those institutions. > > Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and workshops, > since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in the latter. > Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions provided that a > better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops back into main sessions > is realised. > > A emerging model for this process (though other possible models may also be > explored) is found in the "messages" or "recommendations" produced by > national IGFs such IGF-D (Deutschland), and regional IGFs such as the East > African IGF and EURODIG. Ideally this would become a two-way process in > which the institutions addressed could also turn to the IGF with issues they > wished the IGF to address through multi-stakeholder dialogue. > * > > -- > > *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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Oct 8 11:41:59 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:41:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> "US and Russia face off over ICANN veto power Kevin Murphy, October 6, 2010, 13:14:29 (UTC), Domain Policy The ruling body of the International Telecommunications Union this week kicked off a major policy-making meeting in Guadalajara, Mexico, and has already seen the US and Russia taking opposing stances over the future control of ICANN. A group of former Soviet nations, chaired by the Russian Federation's Minister of Communications, seems to have proposed that the ITU should give itself veto power over ICANN decisions. A proposal filed by the Regional Commonwealth in the field of Communications (RCC) calls for the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee to be scrapped and replaced by an ITU group. Consideration should be given to the expediency of having the functions of GAC carried out by a specially-constituted group within ITU with the authority to veto decisions adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors. If it is so decided, the ITU Secretary-General should be instructed to consult ICANN on the matter. The proposal was first noted by Gregory Francis at CircleID. It says that the GAC is currently the only avenue open to governments to "defend their interests" but that it has "no decision-making authority and can do no more than express its wishes". It also notes that fewer than 50% of nations are members of the GAC, and that only 20% or fewer actually participate in GAC meetings. The proposal was apparently submitted to the ongoing ITU Plenipotentiary Conference but, in contrast to ICANN's policy of transparency, many ITU documents are only accessible to its members. A reader was kind enough to send me text extracted from the document. I've been unable to verify its authenticity, but I've no particular reason to believe it's bogus. The RCC was set up in 1991 to increase cooperation between telecommunications and postal operators in the post-Soviet era. Its board is comprised of communications ministers from a dozen nations. Its position on ICANN appears to be also held by the Russian government. Igor Shchegolev, its communications minister, is chair of the RCC board. At the Plenipotentiary on Tuesday, Shechegolev said (via Google Translate): We believe that the ITU is capable of such tasks to international public policy, Internet governance, its development and finally, protection of interests of countries in ICANN. Meanwhile, the US has committed itself to the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance as embodied by ICANN. The State Department's Philip Verveer told the conference: the ITU should be a place where the development of the Internet is fostered. The Internet has progressed and evolved in a remarkably successful way under the existing multi-stakeholder arrangements. Changes, especially changes involving inter-governmental controls, are likely to impair the dynamism of the Internet-something we all have an interest in avoiding. ICANN itself has no formal presence at the Plenipotentiary, after ITU secretary-general Hamadoun Toure turned down a request by ICANN president Rod Beckstrom for observer status. The conference carries on until October 22. It's likely that we haven't heard the last of the anti-ICANN rhetoric." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Fri Oct 8 12:00:25 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 12:00:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi, interesting question. if the ITU so decides, what difference would it actually really make? other than raising heat and discord levels, that is. there is no reason that ICANN would have to accept this decision. in fact, according to California law, it cannot accept an external veto. and there is no reason why those who are already in the GAC would have to accept it either, because unless i am mistaken, ITU decisions do not have the value of treaties - and even then treaties only count after nations have signed them. and in fact withdrawing from GAC would just decrease the near veto they already have on the ICANN Board. interesting times. a. On 8 Oct 2010, at 11:41, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > "US and Russia face off over ICANN veto power > > > > Kevin Murphy, October 6, 2010, 13:14:29 (UTC), Domain Policy > > The ruling body of the International Telecommunications Union this week kicked off a major policy-making meeting in Guadalajara, Mexico, and has already seen the US and Russia taking opposing stances over the future control of ICANN. > > > > A group of former Soviet nations, chaired by the Russian Federation's Minister of Communications, seems to have proposed that the ITU should give itself veto power over ICANN decisions. > > > > A proposal filed by the Regional Commonwealth in the field of Communications (RCC) calls for the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee to be scrapped and replaced by an ITU group. > > > > Consideration should be given to the expediency of having the functions of GAC carried out by a specially-constituted group within ITU with the authority to veto decisions adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors. If it is so decided, the ITU Secretary-General should be instructed to consult ICANN on the matter. > > > > The proposal was first noted by Gregory Francis at CircleID. > > > > It says that the GAC is currently the only avenue open to governments to "defend their interests" but that it has "no decision-making authority and can do no more than express its wishes". > > > > It also notes that fewer than 50% of nations are members of the GAC, and that only 20% or fewer actually participate in GAC meetings. > > > > The proposal was apparently submitted to the ongoing ITU Plenipotentiary Conference but, in contrast to ICANN's policy of transparency, many ITU documents are only accessible to its members. > > > > A reader was kind enough to send me text extracted from the document. I've been unable to verify its authenticity, but I've no particular reason to believe it's bogus. > > > > The RCC was set up in 1991 to increase cooperation between telecommunications and postal operators in the post-Soviet era. Its board is comprised of communications ministers from a dozen nations. > > > > Its position on ICANN appears to be also held by the Russian government. Igor Shchegolev, its communications minister, is chair of the RCC board. > > > > At the Plenipotentiary on Tuesday, Shechegolev said (via Google Translate): > > > > We believe that the ITU is capable of such tasks to international public policy, Internet governance, its development and finally, protection of interests of countries in ICANN. > > > > Meanwhile, the US has committed itself to the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance as embodied by ICANN. The State Department's Philip Verveer told the conference: > > > > the ITU should be a place where the development of the Internet is fostered. The Internet has progressed and evolved in a remarkably successful way under the existing multi-stakeholder arrangements. Changes, especially changes involving inter-governmental controls, are likely to impair the dynamism of the Internet-something we all have an interest in avoiding. > > > > ICANN itself has no formal presence at the Plenipotentiary, after ITU secretary-general Hamadoun Toure turned down a request by ICANN president Rod Beckstrom for observer status. > > > > The conference carries on until October 22. It's likely that we haven't heard the last of the anti-ICANN rhetoric." > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 8 12:10:32 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 19:10:32 +0300 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi, On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > > interesting question. > > if the ITU so decides, what difference would it actually really make? > other than raising heat and discord levels, that is. > > there is no reason that ICANN would have to accept this decision. > in fact, according to California law, it cannot accept an external veto. > I share this opinion, but we just had this discussion at the Open Mic hour of the ARIN meeting less than 10 minutes ago. Folk seem to think that the US would have to pass laws effecting the ITU decisions, since they are bound by treaty. > > and there is no reason why those who are already in the GAC would have to > accept it either, because unless i am mistaken, ITU decisions do not have > the value of treaties - and even then treaties only count after nations have > signed them. That is not the interpretation we just heard at ARIN, maybe JC would like to weigh in here? > and in fact withdrawing from GAC would just decrease the near veto they > already have on the ICANN Board. > > I think they would gladly trade that for real "plenipotentiary" powers. It would be a "coup" basically, they couldn't get WSIS to agree that they should be in charge, so they might just declare themselves in charge! > interesting times. > If the worst-case scenario happened, I would encourage ICANN to move to a non-ITU treaty territory, maybe buy an island somewhere with the 25cents per domain name fee. ;-) -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 8 12:50:05 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 22:20:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4CAF4BBD.8080507@itforchange.net> On Friday 08 October 2010 09:30 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > > interesting question. > > if the ITU so decides, what difference would it actually really make? > other than raising heat and discord levels, that is. > > there is no reason that ICANN would have to accept this decision. > in fact, according to California law, it cannot accept an external veto. > I am very much against ITU taking over ICANN tasks or taking over its supervision, but try not quoting the control of ICANN by California law favorably to keep people like me on this of the argument :) More substantially, I remain of the firm view, expressed often here, that our best bet is a new global IG policy and supervisory dispensation, which inter alia replaces US's supervision over the ICANN ( with ICANN continuing to do all the technical functions it does at present ), and which is more more open, with multistakeholder participation - a new age body. I am also of the view that such a body (with the characteristics we want it to have, or close about ) was more likely at WSIS, more likely in the 2007 than today, still more likely today then it will be the next year, and its likelihood will keep coming down as time passes and more and more governments understand the Internet and how to control it.... There may just still be time. The alternatives to what I propose is an emerging IG regime, which is shaping up right now in front of our eyes, with the following compoments - greater ITU role, plus ACTA kind of plurilateral treaties undemocratically imposed on less powerful governments, plus national governments doing arbitrary and ad hoc controls and regulation over the Internet plus ad hoc GAC's interventions, without then being based on an clear principles, plus of course US being able to do anything it wants to the global critical Internet resources whenever it wants to (see discussions on COICA Bill in the US). The best way forward for civil society is to support a global process of developing general principles for Internet policies, along with new institutional mechanism to overlook the implementation of these principles and policies. And it will be best if civil society takes lead in this. That would our best best way to get as much foot in as possible..... I just keep hoping one day we will wake up to this imperative :) Parminder > and there is no reason why those who are already in the GAC would have to accept it either, because unless i am mistaken, ITU decisions do not have the value of treaties - and even then treaties only count after nations have signed them. and in fact withdrawing from GAC would just decrease the near veto they already have on the ICANN Board. > > interesting times. > > a. > > > > On 8 Oct 2010, at 11:41, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > >> "US and Russia face off over ICANN veto power >> >> >> >> Kevin Murphy, October 6, 2010, 13:14:29 (UTC), Domain Policy >> >> The ruling body of the International Telecommunications Union this week kicked off a major policy-making meeting in Guadalajara, Mexico, and has already seen the US and Russia taking opposing stances over the future control of ICANN. >> >> >> >> A group of former Soviet nations, chaired by the Russian Federation's Minister of Communications, seems to have proposed that the ITU should give itself veto power over ICANN decisions. >> >> >> >> A proposal filed by the Regional Commonwealth in the field of Communications (RCC) calls for the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee to be scrapped and replaced by an ITU group. >> >> >> >> Consideration should be given to the expediency of having the functions of GAC carried out by a specially-constituted group within ITU with the authority to veto decisions adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors. If it is so decided, the ITU Secretary-General should be instructed to consult ICANN on the matter. >> >> >> >> The proposal was first noted by Gregory Francis at CircleID. >> >> >> >> It says that the GAC is currently the only avenue open to governments to "defend their interests" but that it has "no decision-making authority and can do no more than express its wishes". >> >> >> >> It also notes that fewer than 50% of nations are members of the GAC, and that only 20% or fewer actually participate in GAC meetings. >> >> >> >> The proposal was apparently submitted to the ongoing ITU Plenipotentiary Conference but, in contrast to ICANN's policy of transparency, many ITU documents are only accessible to its members. >> >> >> >> A reader was kind enough to send me text extracted from the document. I've been unable to verify its authenticity, but I've no particular reason to believe it's bogus. >> >> >> >> The RCC was set up in 1991 to increase cooperation between telecommunications and postal operators in the post-Soviet era. Its board is comprised of communications ministers from a dozen nations. >> >> >> >> Its position on ICANN appears to be also held by the Russian government. Igor Shchegolev, its communications minister, is chair of the RCC board. >> >> >> >> At the Plenipotentiary on Tuesday, Shechegolev said (via Google Translate): >> >> >> >> We believe that the ITU is capable of such tasks to international public policy, Internet governance, its development and finally, protection of interests of countries in ICANN. >> >> >> >> Meanwhile, the US has committed itself to the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance as embodied by ICANN. The State Department's Philip Verveer told the conference: >> >> >> >> the ITU should be a place where the development of the Internet is fostered. The Internet has progressed and evolved in a remarkably successful way under the existing multi-stakeholder arrangements. Changes, especially changes involving inter-governmental controls, are likely to impair the dynamism of the Internet-something we all have an interest in avoiding. >> >> >> >> ICANN itself has no formal presence at the Plenipotentiary, after ITU secretary-general Hamadoun Toure turned down a request by ICANN president Rod Beckstrom for observer status. >> >> >> >> The conference carries on until October 22. It's likely that we haven't heard the last of the anti-ICANN rhetoric." >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Oct 8 13:00:31 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:00:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <4CAF4BBD.8080507@itforchange.net> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4CAF4BBD.8080507@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6D0BCFF5-E821-494F-8212-F146EA2FCFBD@psg.com> Hi, I am all in favor of evolving ICANN to the point where its board is not subject to California law stipulating it inability to subject itself to outside veto but rather to a multistakeholder Internet Governance regime of some sort. And yes, I understand we have different views of what the future should look like. I was just making a descriptive stmt, not a normative one. a. On 8 Oct 2010, at 12:50, parminder wrote: > > > On Friday 08 October 2010 09:30 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> interesting question. >> >> if the ITU so decides, what difference would it actually really make? >> other than raising heat and discord levels, that is. >> >> there is no reason that ICANN would have to accept this decision. >> in fact, according to California law, it cannot accept an external veto. >> >> > > I am very much against ITU taking over ICANN tasks or taking over its supervision, but try not quoting the control of ICANN by California law favorably to keep people like me on this of the argument :) > > > More substantially, I remain of the firm view, expressed often here, that our best bet is a new global IG policy and supervisory dispensation, which inter alia replaces US's supervision over the ICANN ( with ICANN continuing to do all the technical functions it does at present ), and which is more more open, with multistakeholder participation - a new age body. I am also of the view that such a body (with the characteristics we want it to have, or close about ) was more likely at WSIS, more likely in the 2007 than today, still more likely today then it will be the next year, and its likelihood will keep coming down as time passes and more and more governments understand the Internet and how to control it.... There may just still be time. > > The alternatives to what I propose is an emerging IG regime, which is shaping up right now in front of our eyes, with the following compoments - greater ITU role, plus ACTA kind of plurilateral treaties undemocratically imposed on less powerful governments, plus national governments doing arbitrary and ad hoc controls and regulation over the Internet plus ad hoc GAC's interventions, without then being based on an clear principles, plus of course US being able to do anything it wants to the global critical Internet resources whenever it wants to (see discussions on COICA Bill in the US). > > The best way forward for civil society is to support a global process of developing general principles for Internet policies, along with new institutional mechanism to overlook the implementation of these principles and policies. And it will be best if civil society takes lead in this. That would our best best way to get as much foot in as possible..... I just keep hoping one day we will wake up to this imperative :) Parminder > >> and there is no reason why those who are already in the GAC would have to accept it either, because unless i am mistaken, ITU decisions do not have the value of treaties - and even then treaties only count after nations have signed them. and in fact withdrawing from GAC would just decrease the near veto they already have on the ICANN Board. >> >> interesting times. >> >> a. >> >> >> >> On 8 Oct 2010, at 11:41, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >> >> >>> "US and Russia face off over ICANN veto power >>> >>> >>> >>> Kevin Murphy, October 6, 2010, 13:14:29 (UTC), Domain Policy >>> >>> The ruling body of the International Telecommunications Union this week kicked off a major policy-making meeting in Guadalajara, Mexico, and has already seen the US and Russia taking opposing stances over the future control of ICANN. >>> >>> >>> >>> A group of former Soviet nations, chaired by the Russian Federation's Minister of Communications, seems to have proposed that the ITU should give itself veto power over ICANN decisions. >>> >>> >>> >>> A proposal filed by the Regional Commonwealth in the field of Communications (RCC) calls for the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee to be scrapped and replaced by an ITU group. >>> >>> >>> >>> Consideration should be given to the expediency of having the functions of GAC carried out by a specially-constituted group within ITU with the authority to veto decisions adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors. If it is so decided, the ITU Secretary-General should be instructed to consult ICANN on the matter. >>> >>> >>> >>> The proposal was first noted by Gregory Francis at CircleID. >>> >>> >>> >>> It says that the GAC is currently the only avenue open to governments to "defend their interests" but that it has "no decision-making authority and can do no more than express its wishes". >>> >>> >>> >>> It also notes that fewer than 50% of nations are members of the GAC, and that only 20% or fewer actually participate in GAC meetings. >>> >>> >>> >>> The proposal was apparently submitted to the ongoing ITU Plenipotentiary Conference but, in contrast to ICANN's policy of transparency, many ITU documents are only accessible to its members. >>> >>> >>> >>> A reader was kind enough to send me text extracted from the document. I've been unable to verify its authenticity, but I've no particular reason to believe it's bogus. >>> >>> >>> >>> The RCC was set up in 1991 to increase cooperation between telecommunications and postal operators in the post-Soviet era. Its board is comprised of communications ministers from a dozen nations. >>> >>> >>> >>> Its position on ICANN appears to be also held by the Russian government. Igor Shchegolev, its communications minister, is chair of the RCC board. >>> >>> >>> >>> At the Plenipotentiary on Tuesday, Shechegolev said (via Google Translate): >>> >>> >>> >>> We believe that the ITU is capable of such tasks to international public policy, Internet governance, its development and finally, protection of interests of countries in ICANN. >>> >>> >>> >>> Meanwhile, the US has committed itself to the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance as embodied by ICANN. The State Department's Philip Verveer told the conference: >>> >>> >>> >>> the ITU should be a place where the development of the Internet is fostered. The Internet has progressed and evolved in a remarkably successful way under the existing multi-stakeholder arrangements. Changes, especially changes involving inter-governmental controls, are likely to impair the dynamism of the Internet-something we all have an interest in avoiding. >>> >>> >>> >>> ICANN itself has no formal presence at the Plenipotentiary, after ITU secretary-general Hamadoun Toure turned down a request by ICANN president Rod Beckstrom for observer status. >>> >>> >>> >>> The conference carries on until October 22. It's likely that we haven't heard the last of the anti-ICANN rhetoric." >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> Translate this email: >>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Fri Oct 8 13:04:08 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:04:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <13F6E94D-AFD1-4658-96FC-2293B6622DC7@acm.org> hi, Sorry I missed that ARIN discussion, was off doing something else. I do not see why the US would have to accept it. Is there a controlling treaty that the US has signed that indicates it MUST accept all ITU decisions? I did not have the impression that this was the case. Can anyone point me to the law on this? a. On 8 Oct 2010, at 12:10, McTim wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > > interesting question. > > if the ITU so decides, what difference would it actually really make? > other than raising heat and discord levels, that is. > > there is no reason that ICANN would have to accept this decision. > in fact, according to California law, it cannot accept an external veto. > >> I share this opinion, but we just had this discussion at the Open Mic hour of the ARIN meeting less than 10 minutes ago. Folk seem to think that the US would have to pass laws effecting the ITU decisions, since they are bound by treaty. >> > > and there is no reason why those who are already in the GAC would have to accept it either, because unless i am mistaken, ITU decisions do not have the value of treaties - and even then treaties only count after nations have signed them. > >> That is not the interpretation we just heard at ARIN, maybe JC would like to weigh in here? > > > and in fact withdrawing from GAC would just decrease the near veto they already have on the ICANN Board. > > >> I think they would gladly trade that for real "plenipotentiary" powers. It would be a "coup" basically, they couldn't get WSIS to agree that they should be in charge, so they might just declare themselves in charge! > > > interesting times. > >> If the worst-case scenario happened, I would encourage ICANN to move to a non-ITU treaty territory, maybe buy an island somewhere with the 25cents per domain name fee. >> >> ;-) >> >> -- >> 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 mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Fri Oct 8 14:02:26 2010 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 20:02:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <02E37CAE-4C86-4780-981B-8ADD59C4743B@christopherwilkinson.eu> The Russian Minister's statement is along the following lines (Translation courtesy Google, TBC). What this is intended to mean in practice would relate to the interpretation of <> N.B. ITU has been a member (later an observer) in the GAC since the earliest days of ICANN. CW <> <<Огромное влияние Интернета, использование цифровых услуг и устройств в повседневном обиходе широких слоёв общества заставляют задуматься о проблемах безопасности, и в первую очередь, об информационной безопасности. Государства-члены Союза обозначают широкий круг проблем в этой области – от этических норм при пользовании всемирной сетью до защиты от кибер-атак. По нашему мнению, обеспечение прав субъектов информационного взаимодействия – как национального, так и трансграничного – должно быть основано на комплексном решении правовых, организационных и информационно-технологических вопросов с учётом создания надёжных механизмов защиты. Возглавляемые МСЭ работы по развитию информационной и коммуникационной инфраструктуры, по обеспечению широкополосного доступа и информационной безопасности являются основным направлением деятельности, определённой Всемирной встречей на высшем уровне по вопросам информационного общества. Мы считаем, что МСЭ способен обеспечить выполнение таких задач международной государственной политики, как управление Интернетом, его развитие, наконец, защита интересов стран в ICANN.>> On 08 Oct 2010, at 17:41, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 8 15:51:44 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 15:51:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <02E37CAE-4C86-4780-981B-8ADD59C4743B@christopherwilkinson.eu> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,<02E37CAE-4C86-4780-981B-8ADD59C4743B@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF3B4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> To remind folks, as an international treaty organization - some - ITU decisions translate directly and are mandatory more or less with the force of domestic law. In - some - countries. Others must be retranslated into domestic regulatory decisions or laws. I don't know enough about the specifics here to know in which category we are talking, and in which countries would the proposed ITU actions be seen as binding with the force of domestic law, or whether it would be easy to ignore. In the case of the US, and hence California, a lot of ITU standards actions that are treated as mandatory in some nations, are just treated as 'informational.' So question in this case given US's traditional arms-length/skeptical attitude towards lots of ITU things, is is this a mandatory thing like an allocation of orbital arcs done at a plenipot, or is it optional like a standards rec. But notion that ITU could decide something that is treated as mandatory is not far-fetched at all. Lee ________________________________________ From: CW Mail [mail at christopherwilkinson.eu] Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 2:02 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: CW Mail Subject: Re: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN The Russian Minister's statement is along the following lines (Translation courtesy Google, TBC). What this is intended to mean in practice would relate to the interpretation of <> N.B. ITU has been a member (later an observer) in the GAC since the earliest days of ICANN. CW <> <<Огромное влияние Интернета, использование цифровых услуг и устройств в повседневном обиходе широких слоёв общества заставляют задуматься о проблемах безопасности, и в первую очередь, об информационной безопасности. Государства-члены Союза обозначают широкий круг проблем в этой области – от этических норм при пользовании всемирной сетью до защиты от кибер-атак. По нашему мнению, обеспечение прав субъектов информационного взаимодействия – как национального, так и трансграничного – должно быть основано на комплексном решении правовых, организационных и информационно-технологических вопросов с учётом создания надёжных механизмов защиты. Возглавляемые МСЭ работы по развитию информационной и коммуникационной инфраструктуры, по обеспечению широкополосного доступа и информационной безопасности являются основным направлением деятельности, определённой Всемирной встречей на высшем уровне по вопросам информационного общества. Мы считаем, что МСЭ способен обеспечить выполнение таких задач международной государственной политики, как управление Интернетом, его развитие, наконец, защита интересов стран в ICANN.>> On 08 Oct 2010, at 17:41, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Oct 8 15:59:14 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 15:29:14 -0430 Subject: [governance] THIRD draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4CAF7812.2070608@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 avri at acm.org Fri Oct 8 17:13:53 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 17:13:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <13F6E94D-AFD1-4658-96FC-2293B6622DC7@acm.org> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <13F6E94D-AFD1-4658-96FC-2293B6622DC7@acm.org> Message-ID: <46E0BAAE-A8A5-4661-9381-A918D5EFF960@acm.org> On 8 Oct 2010, at 13:04, Avri Doria wrote: > > I do not see why the US would have to accept it. Is there a controlling treaty that the US has signed that indicates it MUST accept all ITU decisions? I did not have the impression that this was the case. Can anyone point me to the law on this? > I was sent the following tidits, with permission to pass them on. They confirm to me that the even if the ITU passes this thing, no country, including the US, will be bound by it. --- The Plenipotentiary Conferences produce Final Acts. Some of those could include changes to the Constitution and Convention, which are treaty instruments. It also produces Resolutions, which are not binding on countries unless they are ratified. At the official signing of the Final Acts, at the end of the Plenipot, it is normal for countries (Member States) to take "Reservations" on some or all of the Conference outputs, as described in Article 32B of the Convention, reproduced below. I managed to find a copy of the Final Acts from the 2006 Plenipot that I think is accessible without a TIES account at: http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/Background-Documents/final-acts.doc If you search you can find all of the Reservations taken at that time. As for ratification, in democratic countries, this normally requires an Act of Parliament or equivalent. The reservations can be incorporated even in the act of ratification, as for example: "United States of America "The Government of the United States of America has ratified the Instruments amending the Constitution and the Convention of the International Telecommunication Union (Antalya, 2006). The instrument of ratification was deposited with the Secretary-General on 16 January 2009. The Government of the United States of America confirmed Declarations and Reservations made at the time of signature." Bottom line, the provisions of the Plenipot are only binding upon states with the consent of the state. ============== ARTICLE 32B Reservations 1 As a general rule, any delegation whose views are not shared by the remaining delegations shall endeavour, as far as possible, to conform to the opinion of the majority. 2 Any Member State that, during a plenipotentiary conference, reserves its right to make reservations as specified in its declaration when signing the final acts, may make reservations regarding an amendment to the Constitution or to this Convention until such time as its instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval of or accession to the amendment has been deposited with the Secretary-General. 3 If any decision appears to a delegation to be such as to prevent its government from consenting to be bound by the revision of the Admin- istrative Regulations, this delegation may make reservations, final or provisional, regarding that decision, at the end of the conference adopting that revision; any such reservations may be made by a delegation on behalf of a Member State which is not participating in the competent conference and which has given that delegation proxy powers to sign the final acts in accordance with the provisions of Article 31 of this Conven- tion. 4 A reservation made following a conference shall only be valid if the Member State which made it formally confirms it when notifying its consent to be bound by the amended or revised instrument adopted by the conference at the close of which it made the reservation in question. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Fri Oct 8 18:10:55 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 15:10:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF3B4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,<02E37CAE-4C86-4780-981B-8ADD59C4743B@christopherwilkinson.eu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF3B4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4CAF96EF.8090102@cavebear.com> On 10/08/2010 12:51 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > But notion that ITU could decide something that is treated as > mandatory is not far-fetched at all. In the US the quesiton of whether a treaty is domesticated to have force with or over local (national) law is a rather complex question. And in this instance that question is made more complex by the fact that we are not talking about a treaty itself but, rather, a decision made subsequent to a treaty. (Of course, we'd have to begin by asking "which treaty". And examine the terms and conditions, if any, that the US attached when agreeing to it.) Can an international body created under a treaty (to which the US is a signatory) could have veto power over the decisions of a private corporation in the US? My own sense if that that there are a lot of intermediate hurdles that would have to be overcome before that would happen. I suspect that the US would as a matter of national policy strongly fight the notion of automatic domestication of treaty-based powers. So would most countries as auto-domestication amounts to a reduction in the sovereign powers of a nation. And if it were done I suspect it could pour gasoline onto the funeral pyre that a lot of conservative groups ("tea party") want to make for US participation in the UN and other international bodies - yes, that position, once held only by the fruitcake fringe, is now moving towards mainstream US politics. Sigh. And, of course, there is the fact that ICANN acts by virtue of being the vertex of a pyramid of contracts. That vertex exists only because we use a single DNS root. We use a single root merely for convenience; there is no technical reason that blocks others. Too much pressure from overbearing governments and international bodies and the single-root will become multiple roots - and governments and international bodies will have to try to heard a herd of angry cats rather than one somewhat docile ICANN cat. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Oct 8 19:06:07 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 04:36:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <4CAF96EF.8090102@cavebear.com> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <02E37CAE-4C86-4780-981B-8ADD59C4743B@christopherwilkinson.eu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF3B4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CAF96EF.8090102@cavebear.com> Message-ID: On this issue I wrote this: http://www.circleid.com/posts/on_the_need_to_separate_the_telecom_business_agenda_from_government_policy/ Sivasubramanian M On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 10/08/2010 12:51 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > But notion that ITU could decide something that is treated as >> mandatory is not far-fetched at all. >> > > In the US the quesiton of whether a treaty is domesticated to have force > with or over local (national) law is a rather complex question. > > And in this instance that question is made more complex by the fact that we > are not talking about a treaty itself but, rather, a decision made > subsequent to a treaty. > > (Of course, we'd have to begin by asking "which treaty". And examine the > terms and conditions, if any, that the US attached when agreeing to it.) > > Can an international body created under a treaty (to which the US is a > signatory) could have veto power over the decisions of a private corporation > in the US? > > My own sense if that that there are a lot of intermediate hurdles that > would have to be overcome before that would happen. > > I suspect that the US would as a matter of national policy strongly fight > the notion of automatic domestication of treaty-based powers. So would most > countries as auto-domestication amounts to a reduction in the sovereign > powers of a nation. > > And if it were done I suspect it could pour gasoline onto the funeral pyre > that a lot of conservative groups ("tea party") want to make for US > participation in the UN and other international bodies - yes, that position, > once held only by the fruitcake fringe, is now moving towards mainstream US > politics. Sigh. > > And, of course, there is the fact that ICANN acts by virtue of being the > vertex of a pyramid of contracts. That vertex exists only because we use a > single DNS root. We use a single root merely for convenience; there is no > technical reason that blocks others. Too much pressure from overbearing > governments and international bodies and the single-root will become > multiple roots - and governments and international bodies will have to try > to heard a herd of angry cats rather than one somewhat docile ICANN cat. > > --karl-- > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Fri Oct 8 19:16:12 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 08:16:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] THIRD draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <4CAF7812.2070608@gmail.com> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <4CAF7812.2070608@gmail.com> Message-ID: I support this proposal. izumi 2010/10/9 Ginger Paque : > Sorry to introduce a new point at this late date, but I think we should be > asking that the MAG structure implement the rotation strategy that was > introduced a few years ago. By now we should have seen a complete rotation > of the original members, allowing for continuous renewal and new ideas. > > Unfortunately, that means we would lose some very valuable CS > representation, but this is an important concept. > > What do others think? Can we include this? > > Best, Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IGCBP Online Coordinator > DiploFoundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 8 19:17:51 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 19:17:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <46E0BAAE-A8A5-4661-9381-A918D5EFF960@acm.org> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <13F6E94D-AFD1-4658-96FC-2293B6622DC7@acm.org> <46E0BAAE-A8A5-4661-9381-A918D5EFF960@acm.org> Message-ID: > Bottom line, the provisions of the Plenipot are only binding upon states with the consent of the state. You are correct in principle, but in practice treaties are rather complicated objects which exist to facilitate cooperation on matters of shared interest. I'm not going to make arguments on behalf of the ITU, but will note that states participate for a wide range of interests and hence overwhelmingly seek to comply with resulting recommendations (so that they may in turn benefit from recommendations in other areas). While we may see the Internet as the most important topic of all, it is only one of many being discussed at the ITU Plenipotentiary meeting. It is far better to educate states so that they can make good recommendations than having to deal with bad recommendations after the fact... /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 marilynscade at hotmail.com Fri Oct 8 20:05:37 2010 From: marilynscade at hotmail.com (Marilyn Cade) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 20:05:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org>,,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,,,<13F6E94D-AFD1-4658-96FC-2293B6622DC7@acm.org>,<46E0BAAE-A8A5-4661-9381-A918D5EFF960@acm.org>, Message-ID: I both agree and urge some caution, John. It takes more work on the 'ground' to support states that are challenged with learning about, and launching [whether government or Private Sector/NGO] initiativesto bring vast new numbers of users onto the Internet/WWW/online services. If we leave the only solution to be events, workshops, etc organized by the ITU, we are missing our own role, and responsibilities, and opportunities. Treaties are not good things, when they are top down. When they codify national laws and agreements,they can add value. I am probably unique among business players, having helped to change three major treaties/agreements in my long ago past -- being at the table is a vast challenge, and having a legitimate voiceis even a greater challenge -- whether technical expert, business executive, or NGO. Never underestimate thechallenge to have a place at the table to provide gentle, informed, 'advice' that just provides much neededinformation and facts that can help to support a negotiation. Treaty negotiations, by nature, preclude that. That is the risk. And that is the oportunity -- it is not ITU versus ICANN. It is 'different models of consultation versus old style discussions and negotiations. And the IGF is a key part of the new eco system. Marilyn Cade > From: jcurran at arin.net > To: avri at acm.org > CC: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 19:17:51 -0400 > Subject: Re: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN > > > Bottom line, the provisions of the Plenipot are only binding upon states with the consent of the state. > > You are correct in principle, but in practice treaties are rather > complicated objects which exist to facilitate cooperation on matters > of shared interest. I'm not going to make arguments on behalf of the > ITU, but will note that states participate for a wide range of interests > and hence overwhelmingly seek to comply with resulting recommendations > (so that they may in turn benefit from recommendations in other areas). > While we may see the Internet as the most important topic of all, it is > only one of many being discussed at the ITU Plenipotentiary meeting. It > is far better to educate states so that they can make good recommendations > than having to deal with bad recommendations after the fact... > > /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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 9 03:27:09 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 12:57:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org>,,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,,,<13F6E94D-AFD1-4658-96FC-2293B6622DC7@acm.org>,<46E0BAAE-A8A5-4661-9381-A918D5EFF960@acm.org>, Message-ID: <4CB0194D.6020407@itforchange.net> It is very unlikely that ITU will be able to pass a resolution imposing itself on the ICANN. On the other hand, it is almost certain that US will not follow any such resolution to make the required changes in ICANN's structure. As for ICANN itself, it is simply not a party to the ITU system to have to pay heed to any of its resolutions etc, other than through its supervisory structure rooted in the US gov. However what gets tabled and discussed at the ITU is a good barometer of how different countries look at this issue. parminder On Saturday 09 October 2010 05:35 AM, Marilyn Cade wrote: > > I both agree and urge some caution, John. It takes more work on the > 'ground' to support states > that are challenged with learning about, and launching [whether > government or Private Sector/NGO] initiatives > to bring vast new numbers of users onto the Internet/WWW/online services. > > If we leave the only solution to be events, workshops, etc organized > by the ITU, we are missing our > own role, and responsibilities, and opportunities. > > Treaties are not good things, when they are top down. When they codify > national laws and agreements, > they can add value. I am probably unique among business players, > having helped to change three major > treaties/agreements in my long ago past -- being at the table is a > vast challenge, and having a legitimate voice > is even a greater challenge -- whether technical expert, business > executive, or NGO. Never underestimate the > challenge to have a place at the table to provide gentle, informed, > 'advice' that just provides much needed > information and facts that can help to support a negotiation. > > Treaty negotiations, by nature, preclude that. That is the risk. And > that is the oportunity -- it is not > ITU versus ICANN. It is 'different models of consultation versus old > style discussions and negotiations. > > And the IGF is a key part of the new eco system. > > Marilyn Cade > > > > > From: jcurran at arin.net > > To: avri at acm.org > > CC: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 19:17:51 -0400 > > Subject: Re: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN > > > > > Bottom line, the provisions of the Plenipot are only binding upon > states with the consent of the state. > > > > You are correct in principle, but in practice treaties are rather > > complicated objects which exist to facilitate cooperation on matters > > of shared interest. I'm not going to make arguments on behalf of the > > ITU, but will note that states participate for a wide range of > interests > > and hence overwhelmingly seek to comply with resulting recommendations > > (so that they may in turn benefit from recommendations in other areas). > > While we may see the Internet as the most important topic of all, it is > > only one of many being discussed at the ITU Plenipotentiary meeting. It > > is far better to educate states so that they can make good > recommendations > > than having to deal with bad recommendations after the fact... > > > > /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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 9 06:03:23 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 12:03:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <46E0BAAE-A8A5-4661-9381-A918D5EFF960@acm.org> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <13F6E94D-AFD1-4658-96FC-2293B6622DC7@acm.org> <46E0BAAE-A8A5-4661-9381-A918D5EFF960@acm.org> Message-ID: <2BDA984F-6E03-481C-9087-20D5CD905A76@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi No surprises, some governments, including GAC members, have been saying this for years. A few considerations: With regard to the possible extent of support, even within the RCC (which BTW lists on its website Telegraph Network Modernization as one of its work areas) only 8 of the 12 governments have endorsed the proposal. Looking beyond them, one imagines there could be support from (just guessing) China, Pakistan, the Arab countries, parts of Africa, Cuba, and then…who else? Maybe a few other Asian and Latin American governments, don't know; maybe there are even some European ministries that in their heart of hearts would like to see ITU oversight...one hopes there sufficient EU coordination to offset any such yearnings...But a majority of the 192 member states? This seems unlikely going in; whether any plenary debates, regional and back channel consultations etc could shift positions one way or another is impossible to know ex ante. In any event, a more accurate subject line for this thread would be A Group of ITU Members vs ICANN. It's not clear to me in what form this proposal is being made; maybe someone on the ground in Guadalajara can clarify? Other parts of the RCC doc are clearly marked as draft resolutions, but this proposal is not. As Avri's correspondent notes, it does matter whether a text is integral to the Constitution or Convention or is instead a Resolution, Recommendation, or Opinion. And the Final Acts do always include lengthy lists of national Declarations and Reservations, which can be quite interesting reading. Often these have been on wider political issues like apartheid, Palestine, the US embargo on Cuba, etc, but there's also stuff of direct relevance to global telecom governance as well. For example, the US for many decades included in its reservations a statement saying it would not be bound by the International Telegraph and Telephone Regulations, a key substantive treaty that was long used to restrict competition, private networking, etc, and the revision of which is also on the table and of interest viz the Internet. More generally, many governments routinely make reservations to the effect that they reserve their sovereign rights to protect their interests through any actions they deem necessary, which obviously allows a certain latitude. While it's unlikely the conference will ultimately adopt a wildly divisive text that is opposed by the industrialized countries, many developing countries, the global private sector, etc, or that the US would ever agree to be bound to such a provision, this does finally bring to a head some politics that have been percolating for a long time and could unleash new pressures in various settings…UN, ICANN, nationally, etc. So it merits close tracking…hope there'll be discussion in a webcast session. It also raises once again a point I've been flogging to no avail on this list off and on for seven years, which is that it'd be sensible for IGC members to follow events in the ITU more, inter alia since this rather than the IGF is where the real intergovernmental stuff is happening. It's a pity there are no CS organizations prepared to test the secretariat's frequent declarations of openness to CS participation and actually apply to be sector members in ITU-T or ITU-D; the only related entity participating is ISOC, which has made many good interventions against heavy intergovernmentalism but has not sought to be a vehicle for wider member/community/CS engagement etc. Best, Bill On Oct 8, 2010, at 11:13 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 8 Oct 2010, at 13:04, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> I do not see why the US would have to accept it. Is there a controlling treaty that the US has signed that indicates it MUST accept all ITU decisions? I did not have the impression that this was the case. Can anyone point me to the law on this? >> > > I was sent the following tidits, with permission to pass them on. > > They confirm to me that the even if the ITU passes this thing, no country, including the US, will be bound by it. > > > --- > > > The Plenipotentiary Conferences produce Final Acts. Some of those could include changes to the Constitution and Convention, which are treaty instruments. It also produces Resolutions, which are not binding on countries unless they are ratified. At the official signing of the Final Acts, at the end of the Plenipot, it is normal for countries (Member States) to take "Reservations" on some or all of the Conference outputs, as described in Article 32B of the Convention, reproduced below. I managed to find a copy of the Final Acts from the 2006 Plenipot that I think is accessible without a TIES account at: > > http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/Background-Documents/final-acts.doc > > If you search you can find all of the Reservations taken at that time. > > As for ratification, in democratic countries, this normally requires an Act of Parliament or equivalent. The reservations can be incorporated even in the act of ratification, as for example: > > "United States of America > "The Government of the United States of America has ratified the Instruments amending the Constitution and the Convention of the International Telecommunication Union (Antalya, 2006). The instrument of ratification was deposited with the Secretary-General on 16 January 2009. The Government of the United States of America confirmed Declarations and Reservations made at the time of signature." > > Bottom line, the provisions of the Plenipot are only binding upon states with the consent of the state. > > > ============== > > ARTICLE 32B > > Reservations > > 1 As a general rule, any delegation whose views are not shared by the remaining delegations shall endeavour, as far as possible, to conform to the opinion of the majority. > > 2 Any Member State that, during a plenipotentiary conference, reserves its right to make reservations as specified in its declaration when signing the final acts, may make reservations regarding an amendment to the Constitution or to this Convention until such time as its instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval of or accession to the amendment has been deposited with the Secretary-General. > > 3 If any decision appears to a delegation to be such as to prevent its > government from consenting to be bound by the revision of the Admin- istrative Regulations, this delegation may make reservations, final or provisional, regarding that decision, at the end of the conference adopting that revision; any such reservations may be made by a delegation on behalf of a Member State which is not participating in the competent conference and which has given that delegation proxy powers to sign the final acts in accordance with the provisions of Article 31 of this Conven- tion. > > 4 A reservation made following a conference shall only be valid if the Member State which made it formally confirms it when notifying its consent to be bound by the amended or revised instrument adopted by the conference at the close of which it made the reservation in question. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 9 06:20:34 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 12:20:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF Message-ID: <3A941447-3CCE-4A22-824D-A694DDAD8B5F@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi, This is related to the message I just sent concerning the ITU/GAC proposal, but it merits a different thread. The list discussion has all been building off the Kevin Murphy piece Wolfgang circulated. Alas, the article being ICANN-oriented did not bother to take note of another part of the RCC proposal that should be of some concern here. The Russian text includes a section on The Future of the Internet Governance Forum that says, inter alia, "The WSIS Forum 2010 was held in May 2010 in Geneva, and the venue for the next one, in 2011, is the United Nations headquarters in New York. The question of Internet governance is just one of the many questions raised by WSIS, and it would appear logical that IGF should in future be held as part of the WSIS Forum in order for there to be a common platform for all stakeholders seeking to implement WSIS outcomes. This will serve to broaden the audience, particularly within developing countries, and reduce costs for organizers and participants alike. Proposal: To consider IGF as a part of the WSIS Forum in the interests of combining efforts, facilitating participation, especially for developing-country representatives, reducing costs and avoiding duplication of effort." So voila. This isn't exactly news either, I had ITU staffers tell me in Tunis when the IGF was endorsed that "we'll be running this thing in five years." There's always been a contingent of governments, generally the same ones supporting ITU uber ICANN, arguing that ITU should have the IGF; indeed, the Russians said this in Tunis, and insisted on the inclusion in the mandate of those provisions about ITU competence etc. And Toure et al have in the past held up the WTPF, the WSIS Forum, etc as evidence that the ITU does this sort of thing better. All of which harks back to our earlier debate on the WSIS Forum and whether it would be a swell idea to hold it in NYC where UN GA reps could see what a proper UN forum looks like, etc. Best, Bill *********************************************************** 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 www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 9 06:40:41 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 15:40:41 +0500 Subject: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF In-Reply-To: <3A941447-3CCE-4A22-824D-A694DDAD8B5F@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <3A941447-3CCE-4A22-824D-A694DDAD8B5F@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Dear Bill, You are definitely pointing a major concern that should have IGC take a strong position against as well as raise this issue in the upcoming open consultation as well as the CSTD IGF improvements working group. Do you deem it feasible that we use this thread to develop a position statement from IGC to both the IGF and CSTD against the issue? On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:20 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > This is related to the message I just sent concerning the ITU/GAC proposal, but it merits a different thread.  The list discussion has all been building off the Kevin Murphy piece Wolfgang circulated.  Alas, the article being ICANN-oriented did not bother to take note of another part of the RCC proposal that should be of some concern here.  The Russian text includes a section on The Future of the Internet Governance Forum that says, inter alia, > > "The WSIS Forum 2010 was held in May 2010 in Geneva, and the venue for the next one, in 2011, is the United Nations headquarters in New York.  The question of Internet governance is just one of the many questions raised by WSIS, and it would appear logical that IGF should in future be held as part of the WSIS Forum in order for there to be a common platform for all stakeholders seeking to implement WSIS outcomes. This will serve to broaden the audience, particularly within developing countries, and reduce costs for organizers and participants alike. Proposal: To consider IGF as a part of the WSIS Forum in the interests of combining efforts, facilitating participation, especially for developing-country representatives, reducing costs and avoiding duplication of effort." > > So voila.  This isn't exactly news either, I had ITU staffers tell me in Tunis when the IGF was endorsed that "we'll be running this thing in five years."   There's always been a contingent of governments, generally the same ones supporting ITU uber ICANN, arguing that ITU should have the IGF; indeed, the Russians said this in Tunis, and insisted on the inclusion in the mandate of those provisions about ITU competence etc.  And Toure et al have in the past held up the WTPF, the WSIS Forum, etc as evidence that the ITU does this sort of thing better.   All of which harks back to our earlier debate on the WSIS Forum and whether it would be a swell idea to hold it in NYC where UN GA reps could see what a proper UN forum looks like, etc. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > *********************************************************** > 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 > www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake > *********************************************************** -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat Oct 9 08:23:32 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 08:23:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <2BDA984F-6E03-481C-9087-20D5CD905A76@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <13F6E94D-AFD1-4658-96FC-2293B6622DC7@acm.org> <46E0BAAE-A8A5-4661-9381-A918D5EFF960@acm.org> <2BDA984F-6E03-481C-9087-20D5CD905A76@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: On 9 Oct 2010, at 06:03, William Drake wrote: > It's a pity there are no CS organizations prepared to test the secretariat's frequent declarations of openness to CS participation and actually apply to be sector members in ITU-T or ITU-D; agreed. 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 Sat Oct 9 09:55:56 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 15:55:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <13F6E94D-AFD1-4658-96FC-2293B6622DC7@acm.org> <46E0BAAE-A8A5-4661-9381-A918D5EFF960@acm.org> <2BDA984F-6E03-481C-9087-20D5CD905A76@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <43376BD1-4649-4B5C-B7DA-D1317211E115@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi On Oct 9, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 9 Oct 2010, at 06:03, William Drake wrote: > >> It's a pity there are no CS organizations prepared to test the secretariat's frequent declarations of openness to CS participation and actually apply to be sector members in ITU-T or ITU-D; > > > agreed. Yup. Maybe we should form one :-) BTW I've been reminded offline that there's a parallel proposal from 15 Arab countries, including Egypt Tunisia Iraq etc, for the GAC to become an intergovernmental committee, evenly representing the six ITU regions and operating under a cooperation agreement with the ITU, that would oversee ICANN. Also includes stuff about restricting alternative calling procedures (specifically call back mentioned but could include inter alia VOIP), accounting rates for the Internet, etc. 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 acm.org Sat Oct 9 10:23:25 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 10:23:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <43376BD1-4649-4B5C-B7DA-D1317211E115@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <13F6E94D-AFD1-4658-96FC-2293B6622DC7@acm.org> <46E0BAAE-A8A5-4661-9381-A918D5EFF960@acm.org> <2BDA984F-6E03-481C-9087-20D5CD905A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <43376BD1-4649-4B5C-B7DA-D1317211E115@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: On 9 Oct 2010, at 09:55, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Oct 9, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> On 9 Oct 2010, at 06:03, William Drake wrote: >> >>> It's a pity there are no CS organizations prepared to test the secretariat's frequent declarations of openness to CS participation and actually apply to be sector members in ITU-T or ITU-D; >> >> >> agreed. > > > Yup. Maybe we should form one :-) > i have long agreed that the IGC should look into it. I do not know, though, whether it would need a more formal organizational existence in order to actually apply. Of course some of the organizations whose members participate in the IGC, would also be really good candidates, if the fee level could be overcome. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat Oct 9 12:53:14 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 12:53:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <13F6E94D-AFD1-4658-96FC-2293B6622DC7@acm.org> <46E0BAAE-A8A5-4661-9381-A918D5EFF960@acm.org> Message-ID: <0168AD40-9CFC-4EBD-8505-3510EC83F3E8@acm.org> Hi, Of course it is better when states make Internet friendly recommendations, but you can't count on that, even when they do know better. And how well I know that states will make tradeoffs that hurt the things people care about - e.g. isn't that always the case with human rights and freedom of expression (except maybe for Norway, this week). In terms of the ITU, in addition to prior education of the member states (though they tend to see 'education' as a presumptuous thing for us to call it) we need vigilance, alarm raising and plans B, C, ... a. On 8 Oct 2010, at 19:17, John Curran wrote: >> Bottom line, the provisions of the Plenipot are only binding upon states with the consent of the state. > > You are correct in principle, but in practice treaties are rather > complicated objects which exist to facilitate cooperation on matters > of shared interest. I'm not going to make arguments on behalf of the > ITU, but will note that states participate for a wide range of interests > and hence overwhelmingly seek to comply with resulting recommendations > (so that they may in turn benefit from recommendations in other areas). > While we may see the Internet as the most important topic of all, it is > only one of many being discussed at the ITU Plenipotentiary meeting. It > is far better to educate states so that they can make good recommendations > than having to deal with bad recommendations after the fact... > > /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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Sat Oct 9 13:51:45 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 19:51:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <4CAF96EF.8090102@cavebear.com> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,<02E37CAE-4C86-4780-981B-8ADD59C4743B@christopherwilkinson.eu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF3B4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CAF96EF.8090102@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20319883.136901.1286646705597.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f04> Karl wrote : Wow ! This is an overwhelming question ! Btw : And conversely : isn't there at least a question of the same order ? However, who cares ? Best Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT > Message du 09/10/10 00:11 > De : "Karl Auerbach" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN > > > On 10/08/2010 12:51 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > But notion that ITU could decide something that is treated as > > mandatory is not far-fetched at all. > > In the US the quesiton of whether a treaty is domesticated to have force > with or over local (national) law is a rather complex question. > > And in this instance that question is made more complex by the fact that > we are not talking about a treaty itself but, rather, a decision made > subsequent to a treaty. > > (Of course, we'd have to begin by asking "which treaty". And examine > the terms and conditions, if any, that the US attached when agreeing to it.) > > Can an international body created under a treaty (to which the US is a > signatory) could have veto power over the decisions of a private > corporation in the US? > > My own sense if that that there are a lot of intermediate hurdles that > would have to be overcome before that would happen. > > I suspect that the US would as a matter of national policy strongly > fight the notion of automatic domestication of treaty-based powers. So > would most countries as auto-domestication amounts to a reduction in the > sovereign powers of a nation. > > And if it were done I suspect it could pour gasoline onto the funeral > pyre that a lot of conservative groups ("tea party") want to make for US > participation in the UN and other international bodies - yes, that > position, once held only by the fruitcake fringe, is now moving towards > mainstream US politics. Sigh. > > And, of course, there is the fact that ICANN acts by virtue of being the > vertex of a pyramid of contracts. That vertex exists only because we > use a single DNS root. We use a single root merely for convenience; > there is no technical reason that blocks others. Too much pressure from > overbearing governments and international bodies and the single-root > will become multiple roots - and governments and international bodies > will have to try to heard a herd of angry cats rather than one somewhat > docile ICANN cat. > > --karl-- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Sat Oct 9 13:23:08 2010 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 19:23:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <3A941447-3CCE-4A22-824D-A694DDAD8B5F@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4CB0A4FC.9080704@gmx.net> On 10/09/2010 12:40 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Dear Bill, > > You are definitely pointing a major concern that should have IGC take > a strong position against as well as raise this issue in the upcoming > open consultation as well as the CSTD IGF improvements working group. > Do you deem it feasible that we use this thread to develop a position > statement from IGC to both the IGF and CSTD against the issue? > I really hope something like this will start. Norbert > > > On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:20 PM, William Drake > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> This is related to the message I just sent concerning the ITU/GAC proposal, but it merits a different thread. The list discussion has all been building off the Kevin Murphy piece Wolfgang circulated. Alas, the article being ICANN-oriented did not bother to take note of another part of the RCC proposal that should be of some concern here. The Russian text includes a section on The Future of the Internet Governance Forum that says, inter alia, >> >> "The WSIS Forum 2010 was held in May 2010 in Geneva, and the venue for the next one, in 2011, is the United Nations headquarters in New York. The question of Internet governance is just one of the many questions raised by WSIS, and it would appear logical that IGF should in future be held as part of the WSIS Forum in order for there to be a common platform for all stakeholders seeking to implement WSIS outcomes. This will serve to broaden the audience, particularly within developing countries, and reduce costs for organizers and participants alike. Proposal: To consider IGF as a part of the WSIS Forum in the interests of combining efforts, facilitating participation, especially for developing-country representatives, reducing costs and avoiding duplication of effort." >> >> So voila. This isn't exactly news either, I had ITU staffers tell me in Tunis when the IGF was endorsed that "we'll be running this thing in five years." There's always been a contingent of governments, generally the same ones supporting ITU uber ICANN, arguing that ITU should have the IGF; indeed, the Russians said this in Tunis, and insisted on the inclusion in the mandate of those provisions about ITU competence etc. And Toure et al have in the past held up the WTPF, the WSIS Forum, etc as evidence that the ITU does this sort of thing better. All of which harks back to our earlier debate on the WSIS Forum and whether it would be a swell idea to hold it in NYC where UN GA reps could see what a proper UN forum looks like, etc. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> *********************************************************** >> 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 >> www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake >> *********************************************************** >> -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English. This is the latest weekly editorial of The Mirror: The Influence of the Internet on Cambodia Sunday, 3.10.2010 http://tinyurl.com/32suhs5 (to read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new from time to time - at least every weekend: The NEW ADDRESS of The Mirror: http://www.cambodiamirror.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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Oct 10 00:19:39 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 12:19:39 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results Message-ID: I am pleased to announce the results of the 2010 IGF coordinator elections. All candidates polled respectably, indicating that they were all well-qualified nominees for the post. However, we have a clear winner. Congratulations and welcome to my new colleague, Izumi Aizu. There were 107 attempts to vote, of which 103 were valid responses. The invalid responses were two respondents who commenced the survey but did not answer compulsory questions (one "Are you a member of the IGC" and the other, having answered that "Yes", not answering "Have you already voted"), another respondent who abandoned the survey before voting for a coordinator and tried again later successfully, and one who attempted to vote for coordinator twice. Of the 103 valid responses, 101 were from self-identified IGC members, 95 of whom claimed not to have voted already. Four of these remaining qualified voters did not choose to vote for a coordinator. Of the remaining 91 votes cast, Izumi received 52. Thanks also to Rafik who received 13 votes and Marilia who received 26. The public statistics for the poll, and a spreadsheet with the results of the election are both available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/38. A photo of the new coordinators is available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/17. I will write separately about the charter vote and the nominations committee. Here are some questions you may have about the results (though I can't really call them "frequently asked"): Q: Why do the public statistics show 100 (not 103) responses? A: Because by design of the software, these statistics exclude "incomplete" responses. Of the four respondents who did not choose a coordinator, one just skipped that question, whereas the others quit the survey in progress. The former's response is included in the public statistics, and the others are not. Q. Why do the public statistics show 98 (not 101) voters asserting membership of the IGC? A. See the answer to the previous question. Q: Why do the public statistics show 92 (not 95) persons claiming not to have already voted? A: See the answer to the previous question. Q. Why do there appear to be some votes missing from the CSV file (based on the consecutive numbering)? A. The missing ones at the beginning where from testing by me and Ginger. There are a small number of missing votes where I deleted them because the person mistakenly claimed to have voted already (see below). Q. Why do three people appear to have voted twice? A. One of these people mistakenly answered that he had voted already. I told him to vote again using the token sent to his other email address. Another gave up before getting to the coordinator vote, then started again; her first response was treated as invalid. The third does appear to be a double vote; in this case, the first response has been treated as invalid and the second, more complete response taken as definitive. It is not counted in the public statistics, but is retained in the spreadsheet of results. Q. Why did some people say that they had already voted, when they hadn't? A. I don't know, maybe they didn't read the question carefully enough? Anyone who contacted me to ask for the opportunity to re-cast their vote, was able to do so. A few, unfortunately, didn't contact me, and missed out on the opportunity to vote... Q. How did one person vote anonymously? A. It was not really anonymous, they just didn't provide their name. Their email address is news [at] chania.di.uoa.gr. Anyway, theirs was one of the invalid responses that was not counted, as they did not answer a compulsory question. Q. What is the difference between "No", "None" and "N/A"? A. "No" means you were asked a Yes/No question and chose the latter. "None", for the coordinator vote, means you were qualified to vote and chose to support none of the candidates. "N/A" means either you were not qualified to vote, or you didn't answer that question. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun Oct 10 01:44:51 2010 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 05:44:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <616063944-1286689457-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1924728924-@bda047.bisx.prodap.on.blackberry> Hello, Thanks Jeremy for managing the election process, ensuring that democratic process is one if strong points of IGC. I want to congratulate Izumi-san (おめでとう　ございます), he has clearly a support to work on what he developed on his election statement and I am really confident he will work hard to achieve it. Thanks too to Marilia for volunteering and ensuring a gender balance. I hope that geographical balance will be improved and that my region africa to have its voice listened too Rafik BlackBerry from DOCOMO -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Malcolm Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 12:19:39 To: Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Jeremy Malcolm Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results I am pleased to announce the results of the 2010 IGF coordinator elections. All candidates polled respectably, indicating that they were all well-qualified nominees for the post. However, we have a clear winner. Congratulations and welcome to my new colleague, Izumi Aizu. There were 107 attempts to vote, of which 103 were valid responses. The invalid responses were two respondents who commenced the survey but did not answer compulsory questions (one "Are you a member of the IGC" and the other, having answered that "Yes", not answering "Have you already voted"), another respondent who abandoned the survey before voting for a coordinator and tried again later successfully, and one who attempted to vote for coordinator twice. Of the 103 valid responses, 101 were from self-identified IGC members, 95 of whom claimed not to have voted already. Four of these remaining qualified voters did not choose to vote for a coordinator. Of the remaining 91 votes cast, Izumi received 52. Thanks also to Rafik who received 13 votes and Marilia who received 26. The public statistics for the poll, and a spreadsheet with the results of the election are both available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/38. A photo of the new coordinators is available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/17. I will write separately about the charter vote and the nominations committee. Here are some questions you may have about the results (though I can't really call them "frequently asked"): Q: Why do the public statistics show 100 (not 103) responses? A: Because by design of the software, these statistics exclude "incomplete" responses. Of the four respondents who did not choose a coordinator, one just skipped that question, whereas the others quit the survey in progress. The former's response is included in the public statistics, and the others are not. Q. Why do the public statistics show 98 (not 101) voters asserting membership of the IGC? A. See the answer to the previous question. Q: Why do the public statistics show 92 (not 95) persons claiming not to have already voted? A: See the answer to the previous question. Q. Why do there appear to be some votes missing from the CSV file (based on the consecutive numbering)? A. The missing ones at the beginning where from testing by me and Ginger. There are a small number of missing votes where I deleted them because the person mistakenly claimed to have voted already (see below). Q. Why do three people appear to have voted twice? A. One of these people mistakenly answered that he had voted already. I told him to vote again using the token sent to his other email address. Another gave up before getting to the coordinator vote, then started again; her first response was treated as invalid. The third does appear to be a double vote; in this case, the first response has been treated as invalid and the second, more complete response taken as definitive. It is not counted in the public statistics, but is retained in the spreadsheet of results. Q. Why did some people say that they had already voted, when they hadn't? A. I don't know, maybe they didn't read the question carefully enough? Anyone who contacted me to ask for the opportunity to re-cast their vote, was able to do so. A few, unfortunately, didn't contact me, and missed out on the opportunity to vote... Q. How did one person vote anonymously? A. It was not really anonymous, they just didn't provide their name. Their email address is news [at] chania.di.uoa.gr. Anyway, theirs was one of the invalid responses that was not counted, as they did not answer a compulsory question. Q. What is the difference between "No", "None" and "N/A"? A. "No" means you were asked a Yes/No question and chose the latter. "None", for the coordinator vote, means you were qualified to vote and chose to support none of the candidates. "N/A" means either you were not qualified to vote, or you didn't answer that question. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 10 01:52:53 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:52:53 +0800 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment poll, and nomcom selection process Message-ID: Of those who voted in the election, 16 abstained, 4 voted no, and 71 voted yes. This is 78%, which is sufficient for the charter amendment to pass. The amended nomination committee process, showing the amendments, can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/2. 28 current members (ie. those who voted in the election, shown at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E) also volunteered to sit on the new nominating committee. The minimum was 25, so we just scraped in. This list is as follows: Ana Rankovic Antonio M. Moreiras Avri Doria Babatope Soremi Ben Akoh Ben Wagner Brenden Kuerbis Chad Lubelsky Charity Gamboa-Embley Cheryl Langdon-Orr Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond Ernesto Majo Fearghas McKay Fouad Bajwa Hakikur Rahman Ian Peter Jeremy Shtern Meryem Marzouki Milton L. Mueller Nnenna Nwakanma Omar Kaminski Parminder Jeet Singh Qusai Al-Shatti Rimon Levy Robert Guerra Rudi Vansnick Tapani Tarvainen Thomas Lowenhaupt Please respond if you think that you should be on this list but are not. The process by which the members of the new nomcom will be selected are the same as used in previous years (see http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2008-09/msg00124.html), namely a draw based on random number seeds obtained from the 16 October draw of the Irish, English and American national lotteries. So, you have until then to raise any questions or disputes about the pool. After the results are announced, there will be a 48 hour period before the nomcom starts its work to allow members who may wish to do so, to run the procedure to verify the results and for the chair of the nomcom to confirm the willingness of those selected to serve. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Oct 10 04:23:36 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:23:36 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] IGC coordinator election results References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07262@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Congratulations Izumi. Wish you all the best in these stormy times. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Gesendet: So 10.10.2010 06:19 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] IGC coordinator election results I am pleased to announce the results of the 2010 IGF coordinator elections. All candidates polled respectably, indicating that they were all well-qualified nominees for the post. However, we have a clear winner. Congratulations and welcome to my new colleague, Izumi Aizu. There were 107 attempts to vote, of which 103 were valid responses. The invalid responses were two respondents who commenced the survey but did not answer compulsory questions (one "Are you a member of the IGC" and the other, having answered that "Yes", not answering "Have you already voted"), another respondent who abandoned the survey before voting for a coordinator and tried again later successfully, and one who attempted to vote for coordinator twice. Of the 103 valid responses, 101 were from self-identified IGC members, 95 of whom claimed not to have voted already. Four of these remaining qualified voters did not choose to vote for a coordinator. Of the remaining 91 votes cast, Izumi received 52. Thanks also to Rafik who received 13 votes and Marilia who received 26. The public statistics for the poll, and a spreadsheet with the results of the election are both available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/38. A photo of the new coordinators is available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/17. I will write separately about the charter vote and the nominations committee. Here are some questions you may have about the results (though I can't really call them "frequently asked"): Q: Why do the public statistics show 100 (not 103) responses? A: Because by design of the software, these statistics exclude "incomplete" responses. Of the four respondents who did not choose a coordinator, one just skipped that question, whereas the others quit the survey in progress. The former's response is included in the public statistics, and the others are not. Q. Why do the public statistics show 98 (not 101) voters asserting membership of the IGC? A. See the answer to the previous question. Q: Why do the public statistics show 92 (not 95) persons claiming not to have already voted? A: See the answer to the previous question. Q. Why do there appear to be some votes missing from the CSV file (based on the consecutive numbering)? A. The missing ones at the beginning where from testing by me and Ginger. There are a small number of missing votes where I deleted them because the person mistakenly claimed to have voted already (see below). Q. Why do three people appear to have voted twice? A. One of these people mistakenly answered that he had voted already. I told him to vote again using the token sent to his other email address. Another gave up before getting to the coordinator vote, then started again; her first response was treated as invalid. The third does appear to be a double vote; in this case, the first response has been treated as invalid and the second, more complete response taken as definitive. It is not counted in the public statistics, but is retained in the spreadsheet of results. Q. Why did some people say that they had already voted, when they hadn't? A. I don't know, maybe they didn't read the question carefully enough? Anyone who contacted me to ask for the opportunity to re-cast their vote, was able to do so. A few, unfortunately, didn't contact me, and missed out on the opportunity to vote... Q. How did one person vote anonymously? A. It was not really anonymous, they just didn't provide their name. Their email address is news [at] chania.di.uoa.gr . Anyway, theirs was one of the invalid responses that was not counted, as they did not answer a compulsory question. Q. What is the difference between "No", "None" and "N/A"? A. "No" means you were asked a Yes/No question and chose the latter. "None", for the coordinator vote, means you were qualified to vote and chose to support none of the candidates. "N/A" means either you were not qualified to vote, or you didn't answer that question. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Sun Oct 10 05:00:27 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:00:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07262@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07262@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy and all, Thank you so much for giving warm words with the announcement of the outcome of our election. Special thanks to Jeremy who managed the election in an open, fair, well-balanced way. Thank you all who congratulated me, especially to Rafik who has the courage to first nominate himself, and having been a good friend to him here in Japan (and elsewhere), he clearly has the advantage of being youth which I cannot compete ;-). To Marilia who also proved the importance for the gender, regional and other balances. I promise to honor these balances, of course, and act for the cause and the principles of the entire civil society in IGF context and beyond. The figures were NOT so clear - I mean I got just one vote more than the majority of valid votes, Marilia is half of mine, and Rafik half of Marilia. Therefore, I ask Rafik and Marila to bring in your expertise and reasons I am short of to the caucus, please. I am honored to accept the result with a strong sense of responsibility, mindful of all corners of values, balances, rights of the citizens, voices of the civil society for the ongoing endeavor for the IGF. As I wrote in my statement, coming weeks and months will be crucial to secure and strengthen the position of the civil society in the multi-stakeholder framework with regard to the continuation of IGF, and also for the WSIS 2015. I look forward working with Jeremy, and also with all of YOU. Thank you again for your warm support in advance! izumi > ________________________________ > > Von: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] > Gesendet: So 10.10.2010 06:19 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: [governance] IGC coordinator election results > > > I am pleased to announce the results of the 2010 IGF coordinator elections.  All candidates polled respectably, indicating that they were all well-qualified nominees for the post.  However, we have a clear winner.  Congratulations and welcome to my new colleague, Izumi Aizu. > > There were 107 attempts to vote, of which 103 were valid responses.  The invalid responses were two respondents who commenced the survey but did not answer compulsory questions (one "Are you a member of the IGC" and the other, having answered that "Yes", not answering "Have you already voted"), another respondent who abandoned the survey before voting for a coordinator and tried again later successfully, and one who attempted to vote for coordinator twice. > > Of the 103 valid responses, 101 were from self-identified IGC members, 95 of whom claimed not to have voted already.  Four of these remaining qualified voters did not choose to vote for a coordinator.  Of the remaining 91 votes cast, Izumi received 52.  Thanks also to Rafik who received 13 votes and Marilia who received 26. > > The public statistics for the poll, and a spreadsheet with the results of the election are both available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/38.  A photo of the new coordinators is available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/17. > > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hongxueipr at gmail.com Sun Oct 10 05:11:38 2010 From: hongxueipr at gmail.com (Hong Xue) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:11:38 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07262@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Warm congratulations! Wish you bringing in East Asian wisdom to the management of IGC. Hong On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear Jeremy and all, > > Thank you so much for giving warm words with the announcement of > the outcome of our election. Special thanks to Jeremy who managed > the election in an open, fair, well-balanced way. > > Thank you all who congratulated me, especially to Rafik who has the > courage to first nominate himself, and having been a good friend to him > here in Japan (and elsewhere), he clearly has the advantage of being > youth which I cannot compete ;-). To Marilia who also proved the importance > for the gender, regional and other balances. > > I promise to honor these balances, of course, and act for the cause and > the principles of the entire civil society in IGF context and beyond. > > The figures were NOT so clear - I mean I got just one vote more than the > majority of valid votes, Marilia is half of mine, and Rafik half of Marilia. > Therefore, I ask Rafik and Marila to bring in your expertise and reasons > I am short of to the caucus, please. > > I am honored to accept the result with a strong sense of responsibility, > mindful of all corners of values, balances, rights of the citizens, voices > of the civil society for the ongoing endeavor for the IGF. As I wrote in > my statement, coming weeks and months will be crucial to secure and > strengthen the position of the civil society in the multi-stakeholder > framework with regard to the continuation of IGF, and also for the WSIS > 2015. > > I look forward working with Jeremy, and also with all of YOU. > > Thank you again for your warm support in advance! > > izumi > >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] >> Gesendet: So 10.10.2010 06:19 >> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Betreff: [governance] IGC coordinator election results >> >> >> I am pleased to announce the results of the 2010 IGF coordinator elections.  All candidates polled respectably, indicating that they were all well-qualified nominees for the post.  However, we have a clear winner.  Congratulations and welcome to my new colleague, Izumi Aizu. >> >> There were 107 attempts to vote, of which 103 were valid responses.  The invalid responses were two respondents who commenced the survey but did not answer compulsory questions (one "Are you a member of the IGC" and the other, having answered that "Yes", not answering "Have you already voted"), another respondent who abandoned the survey before voting for a coordinator and tried again later successfully, and one who attempted to vote for coordinator twice. >> >> Of the 103 valid responses, 101 were from self-identified IGC members, 95 of whom claimed not to have voted already.  Four of these remaining qualified voters did not choose to vote for a coordinator.  Of the remaining 91 votes cast, Izumi received 52.  Thanks also to Rafik who received 13 votes and Marilia who received 26. >> >> The public statistics for the poll, and a spreadsheet with the results of the election are both available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/38.  A photo of the new coordinators is available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/17. >> > >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Oct 10 05:24:19 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 14:24:19 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A very big and warm congratulations to you Izumi!!!! There is a lot for you to do in cooperation with Jeremy as these are very tough time ;o) Its time to get into the saddle and do it! Take care old friend! On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I am pleased to announce the results of the 2010 IGF coordinator elections. >  All candidates polled respectably, indicating that they were all > well-qualified nominees for the post.  However, we have a clear winner. >  Congratulations and welcome to my new colleague, Izumi Aizu. -- 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Sun Oct 10 05:29:55 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 02:29:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results Message-ID: <389265.21896.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I would like congratulate Izumi Aizu, on his success as IGC Coordinator. Wish you best of luck with new responsibilities. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 09:19 PKT Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >I am pleased to announce the results of the 2010 IGF coordinator elections. All candidates polled respectably, indicating that they were all well-qualified nominees for the post. However, we have a clear winner. Congratulations and welcome to my new colleague, Izumi Aizu. > >There were 107 attempts to vote, of which 103 were valid responses. The invalid responses were two respondents who commenced the survey but did not answer compulsory questions (one "Are you a member of the IGC" and the other, having answered that "Yes", not answering "Have you already voted"), another respondent who abandoned the survey before voting for a coordinator and tried again later successfully, and one who attempted to vote for coordinator twice. > >Of the 103 valid responses, 101 were from self-identified IGC members, 95 of whom claimed not to have voted already. Four of these remaining qualified voters did not choose to vote for a coordinator. Of the remaining 91 votes cast, Izumi received 52. Thanks also to Rafik who received 13 votes and Marilia who received 26. > >The public statistics for the poll, and a spreadsheet with the results of the election are both available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/38. A photo of the new coordinators is available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/17. > >I will write separately about the charter vote and the nominations committee. > >Here are some questions you may have about the results (though I can't really call them "frequently asked"): > >Q: Why do the public statistics show 100 (not 103) responses? > >A: Because by design of the software, these statistics exclude "incomplete" responses. Of the four respondents who did not choose a coordinator, one just skipped that question, whereas the others quit the survey in progress. The former's response is included in the public statistics, and the others are not. > >Q. Why do the public statistics show 98 (not 101) voters asserting membership of the IGC? > >A. See the answer to the previous question. > >Q: Why do the public statistics show 92 (not 95) persons claiming not to have already voted? > >A: See the answer to the previous question. > >Q. Why do there appear to be some votes missing from the CSV file (based on the consecutive numbering)? > >A. The missing ones at the beginning where from testing by me and Ginger. There are a small number of missing votes where I deleted them because the person mistakenly claimed to have voted already (see below). > >Q. Why do three people appear to have voted twice? > >A. One of these people mistakenly answered that he had voted already. I told him to vote again using the token sent to his other email address. Another gave up before getting to the coordinator vote, then started again; her first response was treated as invalid. The third does appear to be a double vote; in this case, the first response has been treated as invalid and the second, more complete response taken as definitive. It is not counted in the public statistics, but is retained in the spreadsheet of results. > >Q. Why did some people say that they had already voted, when they hadn't? > >A. I don't know, maybe they didn't read the question carefully enough? Anyone who contacted me to ask for the opportunity to re-cast their vote, was able to do so. A few, unfortunately, didn't contact me, and missed out on the opportunity to vote... > >Q. How did one person vote anonymously? > >A. It was not really anonymous, they just didn't provide their name. Their email address is news [at] chania.di.uoa.gr. Anyway, theirs was one of the invalid responses that was not counted, as they did not answer a compulsory question. > >Q. What is the difference between "No", "None" and "N/A"? > >A. "No" means you were asked a Yes/No question and chose the latter. "None", for the coordinator vote, means you were qualified to vote and chose to support none of the candidates. "N/A" means either you were not qualified to vote, or you didn't answer that question. > >-- >Jeremy Malcolm >Project Coordinator >Consumers International >Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > >CI is 50 >Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. >Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. >http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 > >Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun Oct 10 05:31:35 2010 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:31:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07262@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear Izumi-san, indeed a good friend.I am not sure that being youth is an advantage :) you can count me for any help or support, we need all efforts from everybody in this critical time regarding IGF continuation. I wanted also to thank people who voted me, I take it as a vote of confidence and hope to continue to do my best. Rafik 2010/10/10 Izumi AIZU > Dear Jeremy and all, > > Thank you so much for giving warm words with the announcement of > the outcome of our election. Special thanks to Jeremy who managed > the election in an open, fair, well-balanced way. > > Thank you all who congratulated me, especially to Rafik who has the > courage to first nominate himself, and having been a good friend to him > here in Japan (and elsewhere), he clearly has the advantage of being > youth which I cannot compete ;-). To Marilia who also proved the importance > for the gender, regional and other balances. > > I promise to honor these balances, of course, and act for the cause and > the principles of the entire civil society in IGF context and beyond. > > The figures were NOT so clear - I mean I got just one vote more than the > majority of valid votes, Marilia is half of mine, and Rafik half of > Marilia. > Therefore, I ask Rafik and Marila to bring in your expertise and reasons > I am short of to the caucus, please. > > I am honored to accept the result with a strong sense of responsibility, > mindful of all corners of values, balances, rights of the citizens, voices > of the civil society for the ongoing endeavor for the IGF. As I wrote in > my statement, coming weeks and months will be crucial to secure and > strengthen the position of the civil society in the multi-stakeholder > framework with regard to the continuation of IGF, and also for the WSIS > 2015. > > I look forward working with Jeremy, and also with all of YOU. > > Thank you again for your warm support in advance! > > izumi > > > ________________________________ > > > > Von: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] > > Gesendet: So 10.10.2010 06:19 > > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Betreff: [governance] IGC coordinator election results > > > > > > I am pleased to announce the results of the 2010 IGF coordinator > elections. All candidates polled respectably, indicating that they were all > well-qualified nominees for the post. However, we have a clear winner. > Congratulations and welcome to my new colleague, Izumi Aizu. > > > > There were 107 attempts to vote, of which 103 were valid responses. The > invalid responses were two respondents who commenced the survey but did not > answer compulsory questions (one "Are you a member of the IGC" and the > other, having answered that "Yes", not answering "Have you already voted"), > another respondent who abandoned the survey before voting for a coordinator > and tried again later successfully, and one who attempted to vote for > coordinator twice. > > > > Of the 103 valid responses, 101 were from self-identified IGC members, 95 > of whom claimed not to have voted already. Four of these remaining > qualified voters did not choose to vote for a coordinator. Of the remaining > 91 votes cast, Izumi received 52. Thanks also to Rafik who received 13 > votes and Marilia who received 26. > > > > The public statistics for the poll, and a spreadsheet with the results of > the election are both available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/38. A > photo of the new coordinators is available at > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/17. > > > > > > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm > > Project Coordinator > > Consumers International > > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Oct 10 05:45:53 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 11:45:53 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF References: <3A941447-3CCE-4A22-824D-A694DDAD8B5F@graduateinstitute.ch> <4CB0A4FC.9080704@gmx.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07263@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Bill and others thanks for pointing to the IGF part of the Russian speech. Both together (the attack aginst ICANN & the IGF) look like an integrated strategy where the key idea is to bring the Internet under an intergovernmental mechanism and to kill the concept of "multistakeholderism". In the "Russian model" non-governmental stakeholders will be "invited" only under certain circumstances, which are defined and controlled by governments. This is the old hierarchical top down policy model. This is how the ITU works. This is how the ITU organized its "World Telecommunication Policy Forum" (WTPF). Here is my personal story from the WTPF 2009 in Lisbon. There was no free access to the WTPF. As an individual (or NGO) you had to write an application, explaining why you want to participate. This application was checked by an unknown third party. I applied and after a couple of days I got the permission for registration. The three day Forum was organized in a way that the whole first day was filled with official speeches by governmental delegations. There was no debate. There was a speaking order, reserved for governmental speakers only on Day 1. People like me with a NGO-badge had to find a chair in the back of the room. There was a clear seperation between the governmental and the non-governmental rows. On Day 2, when working sessions started, I wanted to make a comment to one of the speeches. But the Chair (my friend Abdullah from Saudi-Arabia who was also member of the WGIG) apologized with friendly words and explained to me that according to the rules of procedures I am not allowed to speak. Non-govenmental speakers could speak only if they are "invited" or of they are "private sector members of the ITU". As a private sector member you have to pay a membership fee of about 20.000.00 Swiss Francs annualy. I said that as an indivdual I can not afford to pay such a price for a three minute statement. He proposed that I should write down my intervention and promised that this will be published on the open part of the ITU website (you know that 80 per cent of ITU documents are not available to the public). Another example was the preparatory meeting for the WSIS 2010 Forum, which took place at the ITU Montbrillant building in Geneva in February 2010. The podium which explained the planned programme for the WSIS Forum was filled with representatives of intergovernmental organizations only. It was chaired by Houlin Zhao the now re-elected Deputy Secretary General of the ITU. When I asked him in the public debate about the principle of multistakeholderism and why no representatives of civil society and private sector are on the podium he replied, that UNESCO (which was on the podium) has hundreds of NGOs accredited and ITU has hundreds of private sector members. This is enough to meet the criteria of multistakeholderism. Wow! Lisbon April 2009 and Geneva February 2010 rememberd my at the painful discussions on the "Rules of Procedures" during PrepCom1 at WSIS in June 2002. There was a general impression that with WSIS I, WGIG, WSIS II and the IGF we moved forward towards a truly multistakeholder dialogue, inspired by the Internet Governance definition, as a guiding principle accepted even by the Heads of State. However obviously some governments do not (and/or will not) remember what they signed and secondly they have a special interpretation of the agreed texts. On the one hand one could argue that the Russian speech is just one point of view of one ITU member state. Personally I do not see that this position has a chance to get consensus by the whole Plenipotentiary Conference, where all governments have to agree. On the other hand the statement makes clear that the battle of 2005 is not over but has just restarted. One scenario could be that the ITU discussion is used by some governments to test out how far they can go in the UNGA discussion on continuation and improvement of the IGF. The "improvement" debate is for 2011 and the decision will be made by the UNGA in November 2011. With other words, a WSIS Forum in May 2011 in New York (is the site already decided?) and an IGF in September 2011 in Nairobi would compete against each other, evaluated then by the governments of the UN member states in November 2011. Another target of the Russian initiative could be to prepare the ground for a third WSIS in 2015. The deal in Guadalajara could be that the ITU gives up (for the moment) to becomne a RIR but would get a mandate to organize a 3rd WSIS. Under a WSIS umbrella governments would get another opportunity to work towards a model, where ICANN is pushed into an intergovenrmental framewok. If people are interested into the various ideas they should go back to "model 3" and "model 4" of the WGIG report from 2005. BTW, remember the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 1998 in Minneapolis, when ITU gave up (for the moment) its intention to get the hand over the DNS and IP addresses via the IAHC but got as a compensation the mandate to start the WSIS process. No new arguments, no new ideas. Old wine in new bottles. But 2010 is not 2005 and not 1998. We have one billion more Internet users and dozens of more problems (CC, IOT, SN etc.) which have only little to do with the DNS. They call for more multistakeholder dialog and bottom up PDP in an open and transparent environment and not for less. As it was said hundred times in 2005: The political challenges of the 21st century can not be settled with the diplomatic instruments of the 20th century. We have to be innovative and have to create something which is able to manage these challenges. ICANN and IGF is not the end of history. In contrary it is the beginning of a new historical phase. But we have to look and move forward, not backwards. What could be done? 1. IGC members, in particular from developing countries, should try to contact their national representatives participating in Guadalajara (and in the forthcoming UNGA discussion in the 2nd Committee) to explain them the background of the battle to enhanced their knowledge and understanding of the various dimensions of the issue 2. The IGC should work on a broader document on the future of Internet Governance with special parts on "improvement" of ICANN and the IGF. A first version could be presented at the forthcoming November IGF/MAG consultations in Geneva. Best wishes wolfgang Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Norbert Klein im Auftrag von Norbert Klein Gesendet: Sa 09.10.2010 19:23 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF On 10/09/2010 12:40 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Dear Bill, > > You are definitely pointing a major concern that should have IGC take > a strong position against as well as raise this issue in the upcoming > open consultation as well as the CSTD IGF improvements working group. > Do you deem it feasible that we use this thread to develop a position > statement from IGC to both the IGF and CSTD against the issue? > I really hope something like this will start. Norbert > > > On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:20 PM, William Drake > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> This is related to the message I just sent concerning the ITU/GAC proposal, but it merits a different thread. The list discussion has all been building off the Kevin Murphy piece Wolfgang circulated. Alas, the article being ICANN-oriented did not bother to take note of another part of the RCC proposal that should be of some concern here. The Russian text includes a section on The Future of the Internet Governance Forum that says, inter alia, >> >> "The WSIS Forum 2010 was held in May 2010 in Geneva, and the venue for the next one, in 2011, is the United Nations headquarters in New York. The question of Internet governance is just one of the many questions raised by WSIS, and it would appear logical that IGF should in future be held as part of the WSIS Forum in order for there to be a common platform for all stakeholders seeking to implement WSIS outcomes. This will serve to broaden the audience, particularly within developing countries, and reduce costs for organizers and participants alike. Proposal: To consider IGF as a part of the WSIS Forum in the interests of combining efforts, facilitating participation, especially for developing-country representatives, reducing costs and avoiding duplication of effort." >> >> So voila. This isn't exactly news either, I had ITU staffers tell me in Tunis when the IGF was endorsed that "we'll be running this thing in five years." There's always been a contingent of governments, generally the same ones supporting ITU uber ICANN, arguing that ITU should have the IGF; indeed, the Russians said this in Tunis, and insisted on the inclusion in the mandate of those provisions about ITU competence etc. And Toure et al have in the past held up the WTPF, the WSIS Forum, etc as evidence that the ITU does this sort of thing better. All of which harks back to our earlier debate on the WSIS Forum and whether it would be a swell idea to hold it in NYC where UN GA reps could see what a proper UN forum looks like, etc. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> *********************************************************** >> 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 >> www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake >> *********************************************************** >> -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English. This is the latest weekly editorial of The Mirror: The Influence of the Internet on Cambodia Sunday, 3.10.2010 http://tinyurl.com/32suhs5 (to read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new from time to time - at least every weekend: The NEW ADDRESS of The Mirror: http://www.cambodiamirror.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ceo at bnnrc.net Sun Oct 10 06:10:08 2010 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:10:08 +0600 Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07262@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear Izumi AIZU San, Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) Very heartiest congratulations to you as IGC Coordinator from Bangladesh. Welcome to visit Dhaka. With best regards, Bazlu _________________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] & Head, Community Radio Academy House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Izumi AIZU" To: Cc: "Jeremy Malcolm" Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2010 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [governance] IGC coordinator election results Dear Jeremy and all, Thank you so much for giving warm words with the announcement of the outcome of our election. Special thanks to Jeremy who managed the election in an open, fair, well-balanced way. Thank you all who congratulated me, especially to Rafik who has the courage to first nominate himself, and having been a good friend to him here in Japan (and elsewhere), he clearly has the advantage of being youth which I cannot compete ;-). To Marilia who also proved the importance for the gender, regional and other balances. I promise to honor these balances, of course, and act for the cause and the principles of the entire civil society in IGF context and beyond. The figures were NOT so clear - I mean I got just one vote more than the majority of valid votes, Marilia is half of mine, and Rafik half of Marilia. Therefore, I ask Rafik and Marila to bring in your expertise and reasons I am short of to the caucus, please. I am honored to accept the result with a strong sense of responsibility, mindful of all corners of values, balances, rights of the citizens, voices of the civil society for the ongoing endeavor for the IGF. As I wrote in my statement, coming weeks and months will be crucial to secure and strengthen the position of the civil society in the multi-stakeholder framework with regard to the continuation of IGF, and also for the WSIS 2015. I look forward working with Jeremy, and also with all of YOU. Thank you again for your warm support in advance! izumi > ________________________________ > > Von: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] > Gesendet: So 10.10.2010 06:19 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: [governance] IGC coordinator election results > > > I am pleased to announce the results of the 2010 IGF coordinator > elections. All candidates polled respectably, indicating that they were > all well-qualified nominees for the post. However, we have a clear winner. > Congratulations and welcome to my new colleague, Izumi Aizu. > > There were 107 attempts to vote, of which 103 were valid responses. The > invalid responses were two respondents who commenced the survey but did > not answer compulsory questions (one "Are you a member of the IGC" and the > other, having answered that "Yes", not answering "Have you already > voted"), another respondent who abandoned the survey before voting for a > coordinator and tried again later successfully, and one who attempted to > vote for coordinator twice. > > Of the 103 valid responses, 101 were from self-identified IGC members, 95 > of whom claimed not to have voted already. Four of these remaining > qualified voters did not choose to vote for a coordinator. Of the > remaining 91 votes cast, Izumi received 52. Thanks also to Rafik who > received 13 votes and Marilia who received 26. > > The public statistics for the poll, and a spreadsheet with the results of > the election are both available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/38. A > photo of the new coordinators is available at > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/17. > > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 10 08:12:51 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 07:42:51 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CB1ADC3.7060306@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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Oct 10 09:09:59 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 21:09:59 +0800 Subject: AW: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07263@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <3A941447-3CCE-4A22-824D-A694DDAD8B5F@graduateinstitute.ch> <4CB0A4FC.9080704@gmx.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07263@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <334EA574-A85B-4274-96C3-AF1AC3A71591@ciroap.org> On 10/10/2010, at 5:45 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > 2. The IGC should work on a broader document on the future of Internet Governance with special parts on "improvement" of ICANN and the IGF. A first version could be presented at the forthcoming November IGF/MAG consultations in Geneva. This would tie in very well with the statement that we should make to UNDESA about Enhanced Cooperation by 1 December (http://tinyurl.com/enhanced-cooperation, background to this is no longer online at the UN, but see instead http://tinyurl.com/brazil-ec-blog). Indeed, for convenience, I suggest that perhaps they should be one and the same statement. I will be travelling a lot in the next month or so, so I will consult with Izumi about who should guide this process. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Oct 10 09:48:37 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 21:48:37 +0800 Subject: [governance] CORRECTED nomcom pool Message-ID: <5D0021D2-4D27-4D45-98F9-3F93A9A9EDD0@ciroap.org> My apologies to everyone; the list of 28 names for the nominating committee pool that I sent earlier was completely wrong. This came about through a simple but serious error in copying and pasting from the wrong column of names. Here is the correct list, double-checked this time: Anupam Agrawal AHM Bazlur Rahmna Babatope Soremi Cheryl Langdon-Orr Dave Kissoondoyal Erick Iriarte Fearghas McKay Ginger Paque Gurumurthy K Hanane Boujemi Hempal Shrestha Ian Peter Imran Ahmed Shah Jacqueline Morris Jamil Goheer Jeremy Hunsinger Julian Casasbuenas G Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare Lyman Chapin Marília Maciel Mohamed Zahran Omar Kaminski Qusai Al-Shatti Rudi Vansnick Shahzad Ahmad Siranush Vardanyan Solomon Gizaw Wolfgang Kleinwächter Sorry again to all concerned. If there are any further errors (though I now think not), please bring them to my attention before next Saturday when the random draw will occur. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ias_pk at yahoo.com Sun Oct 10 11:28:09 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 08:28:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] CORRECTED nomcom pool Message-ID: <142540.29221.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks Jeremy Malcolm,Quick intimation reduced confusion. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:48 PKT Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >My apologies to everyone; the list of 28 names for the nominating committee pool that I sent earlier was completely wrong. This came about through a simple but serious error in copying and pasting from the wrong column of names. > >Here is the correct list, double-checked this time: > >Anupam Agrawal >AHM Bazlur Rahmna >Babatope Soremi >Cheryl Langdon-Orr >Dave Kissoondoyal >Erick Iriarte >Fearghas McKay >Ginger Paque >Gurumurthy K >Hanane Boujemi >Hempal Shrestha >Ian Peter >Imran Ahmed Shah >Jacqueline Morris >Jamil Goheer >Jeremy Hunsinger >Julian Casasbuenas G >Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare >Lyman Chapin >Marília Maciel >Mohamed Zahran >Omar Kaminski >Qusai Al-Shatti >Rudi Vansnick >Shahzad Ahmad >Siranush Vardanyan >Solomon Gizaw >Wolfgang Kleinwächter > >Sorry again to all concerned. If there are any further errors (though I now think not), please bring them to my attention before next Saturday when the random draw will occur. > >-- >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 Sun Oct 10 12:53:28 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:53:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] THIRD draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <4CAF7812.2070608@gmail.com> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <4CAF7812.2070608@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <4CAF7812.2070608 at gmail.com>, at 15:29:14 on Fri, 8 Oct 2010, Ginger Paque writes >Sorry to introduce a new point at this late date, but I think we should >be asking that the MAG structure implement the rotation strategy that >was introduced a few years ago. By now we should have seen a complete >rotation of the original members, allowing for continuous renewal and >new ideas. Do you think the existing rule is "change a third (any third) of the members each year", or "everyone has a maximum of three years" - which forces the renewal of only the longest-serving third? I used to assume it was the latter, but my observations suggest it might be closer to the former. -- 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 mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Sun Oct 10 13:18:20 2010 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 19:18:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] THIRD draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <4CAF7812.2070608@gmail.com> Message-ID: The rotation principle requires the latter: Maximum of three years. (perhaps not excluding coming back later.) The former could result in 'last in first out'. That is not rotation. Otherwise, it would be more transparent to designate certain seats as permanent. Just a thought CW On 10 Oct 2010, at 18:53, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4CAF7812.2070608 at gmail.com>, at 15:29:14 on Fri, 8 Oct > 2010, Ginger Paque writes >> Sorry to introduce a new point at this late date, but I think we >> should be asking that the MAG structure implement the rotation >> strategy that was introduced a few years ago. By now we should have >> seen a complete rotation of the original members, allowing for >> continuous renewal and new ideas. > > Do you think the existing rule is "change a third (any third) of the > members each year", or "everyone has a maximum of three years" - > which forces the renewal of only the longest-serving third? > > I used to assume it was the latter, but my observations suggest it > might be closer to the former. > -- > 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 tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Sun Oct 10 14:07:05 2010 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 19:07:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulation Izumi; thank you Rafik and Marilia for your candidature that made the election meaningful. ------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Chairman of CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------ _____ De : Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Envoyé : dimanche 10 octobre 2010 05:20 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org Objet : [governance] IGC coordinator election results I am pleased to announce the results of the 2010 IGF coordinator elections. All candidates polled respectably, indicating that they were all well-qualified nominees for the post. However, we have a clear winner. Congratulations and welcome to my new colleague, Izumi Aizu. There were 107 attempts to vote, of which 103 were valid responses. The invalid responses were two respondents who commenced the survey but did not answer compulsory questions (one "Are you a member of the IGC" and the other, having answered that "Yes", not answering "Have you already voted"), another respondent who abandoned the survey before voting for a coordinator and tried again later successfully, and one who attempted to vote for coordinator twice. Of the 103 valid responses, 101 were from self-identified IGC members, 95 of whom claimed not to have voted already. Four of these remaining qualified voters did not choose to vote for a coordinator. Of the remaining 91 votes cast, Izumi received 52. Thanks also to Rafik who received 13 votes and Marilia who received 26. The public statistics for the poll, and a spreadsheet with the results of the election are both available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/38. A photo of the new coordinators is available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/17. I will write separately about the charter vote and the nominations committee. Here are some questions you may have about the results (though I can't really call them "frequently asked"): Q: Why do the public statistics show 100 (not 103) responses? A: Because by design of the software, these statistics exclude "incomplete" responses. Of the four respondents who did not choose a coordinator, one just skipped that question, whereas the others quit the survey in progress. The former's response is included in the public statistics, and the others are not. Q. Why do the public statistics show 98 (not 101) voters asserting membership of the IGC? A. See the answer to the previous question. Q: Why do the public statistics show 92 (not 95) persons claiming not to have already voted? A: See the answer to the previous question. Q. Why do there appear to be some votes missing from the CSV file (based on the consecutive numbering)? A. The missing ones at the beginning where from testing by me and Ginger. There are a small number of missing votes where I deleted them because the person mistakenly claimed to have voted already (see below). Q. Why do three people appear to have voted twice? A. One of these people mistakenly answered that he had voted already. I told him to vote again using the token sent to his other email address. Another gave up before getting to the coordinator vote, then started again; her first response was treated as invalid. The third does appear to be a double vote; in this case, the first response has been treated as invalid and the second, more complete response taken as definitive. It is not counted in the public statistics, but is retained in the spreadsheet of results. Q. Why did some people say that they had already voted, when they hadn't? A. I don't know, maybe they didn't read the question carefully enough? Anyone who contacted me to ask for the opportunity to re-cast their vote, was able to do so. A few, unfortunately, didn't contact me, and missed out on the opportunity to vote... Q. How did one person vote anonymously? A. It was not really anonymous, they just didn't provide their name. Their email address is news [at] chania.di.uoa.gr. Anyway, theirs was one of the invalid responses that was not counted, as they did not answer a compulsory question. Q. What is the difference between "No", "None" and "N/A"? A. "No" means you were asked a Yes/No question and chose the latter. "None", for the coordinator vote, means you were qualified to vote and chose to support none of the candidates. "N/A" means either you were not qualified to vote, or you didn't answer that question. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Oct 10 14:22:34 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:22:34 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07262@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear Izumi, congratulations for this result! IGC will benefit very much from your experience and will certainly rely on the work and guidance of the coordinators to help us reach informed, concrete and timely decisions on the challenging times ahead of us. Congratulations as well to Rafik. It is very good to see youth representatives actively involved with IG. Many thanks should go as well to the IGC coordinators for organizing this election in such a transparent and efficient manner. I would also like to thank everybody who voted for me, for their trust on my work. The coordinators can certainly count on my assistance for whatever needed. Last but not least, I hope that the spirit of open debate and active participation continue inspiring all of us. I do believe we are on a key-moment for the IG regime and that our only chance to preserve its original characteristics of openness and multistakeholderism is to develop a clear strategy and a concerted action, while increasing the diversity, the legitimacy and the outreach of civil society. Best wishes and good work to all of us! Marília On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear Jeremy and all, > > Thank you so much for giving warm words with the announcement of > the outcome of our election. Special thanks to Jeremy who managed > the election in an open, fair, well-balanced way. > > Thank you all who congratulated me, especially to Rafik who has the > courage to first nominate himself, and having been a good friend to him > here in Japan (and elsewhere), he clearly has the advantage of being > youth which I cannot compete ;-). To Marilia who also proved the importance > for the gender, regional and other balances. > > I promise to honor these balances, of course, and act for the cause and > the principles of the entire civil society in IGF context and beyond. > > The figures were NOT so clear - I mean I got just one vote more than the > majority of valid votes, Marilia is half of mine, and Rafik half of > Marilia. > Therefore, I ask Rafik and Marila to bring in your expertise and reasons > I am short of to the caucus, please. > > I am honored to accept the result with a strong sense of responsibility, > mindful of all corners of values, balances, rights of the citizens, voices > of the civil society for the ongoing endeavor for the IGF. As I wrote in > my statement, coming weeks and months will be crucial to secure and > strengthen the position of the civil society in the multi-stakeholder > framework with regard to the continuation of IGF, and also for the WSIS > 2015. > > I look forward working with Jeremy, and also with all of YOU. > > Thank you again for your warm support in advance! > > izumi > > > ________________________________ > > > > Von: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] > > Gesendet: So 10.10.2010 06:19 > > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Betreff: [governance] IGC coordinator election results > > > > > > I am pleased to announce the results of the 2010 IGF coordinator > elections. All candidates polled respectably, indicating that they were all > well-qualified nominees for the post. However, we have a clear winner. > Congratulations and welcome to my new colleague, Izumi Aizu. > > > > There were 107 attempts to vote, of which 103 were valid responses. The > invalid responses were two respondents who commenced the survey but did not > answer compulsory questions (one "Are you a member of the IGC" and the > other, having answered that "Yes", not answering "Have you already voted"), > another respondent who abandoned the survey before voting for a coordinator > and tried again later successfully, and one who attempted to vote for > coordinator twice. > > > > Of the 103 valid responses, 101 were from self-identified IGC members, 95 > of whom claimed not to have voted already. Four of these remaining > qualified voters did not choose to vote for a coordinator. Of the remaining > 91 votes cast, Izumi received 52. Thanks also to Rafik who received 13 > votes and Marilia who received 26. > > > > The public statistics for the poll, and a spreadsheet with the results of > the election are both available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/38. A > photo of the new coordinators is available at > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/17. > > > > > > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm > > Project Coordinator > > Consumers International > > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andersj at elon.edu Sun Oct 10 15:21:16 2010 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:21:16 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07263@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: An excellent IGC-sponsored session on governance that ties into this discussion of multistakeholderism was led by Jeremy at IGF in Vilnius. It was a two-Wolfgang session (maybe we should print T-shirts ;) that featured many other important voices. The full video can be found here by looking for the Workshop #55 (with WSIS in its name) under the list of workshops for Sept. 17 at the following location: http://webcast.intgovforum.org/ondemand/?media=workshops And a brief write-up with photos and video clips can be found here: http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/looking_to_WSIS.xhtml Janna On 10/10/10 5:45 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi Bill and others > > thanks for pointing to the IGF part of the Russian speech. Both together (the > attack aginst ICANN & the IGF) look like an integrated strategy where the key > idea is to bring the Internet under an intergovernmental mechanism and to kill > the concept of "multistakeholderism". In the "Russian model" non-governmental > stakeholders will be "invited" only under certain circumstances, which are > defined and controlled by governments. This is the old hierarchical top down > policy model. This is how the ITU works. This is how the ITU organized its > "World Telecommunication Policy Forum" (WTPF). > > Here is my personal story from the WTPF 2009 in Lisbon. There was no free > access to the WTPF. As an individual (or NGO) you had to write an application, > explaining why you want to participate. This application was checked by an > unknown third party. I applied and after a couple of days I got the permission > for registration. The three day Forum was organized in a way that the whole > first day was filled with official speeches by governmental delegations. There > was no debate. There was a speaking order, reserved for governmental speakers > only on Day 1. People like me with a NGO-badge had to find a chair in the back > of the room. There was a clear seperation between the governmental and the > non-governmental rows. On Day 2, when working sessions started, I wanted to > make a comment to one of the speeches. But the Chair (my friend Abdullah from > Saudi-Arabia who was also member of the WGIG) apologized with friendly words > and explained to me that according to the rules of procedures I am not allowed > to speak. Non-govenmental speakers could speak only if they are "invited" or > of they are "private sector members of the ITU". As a private sector member > you have to pay a membership fee of about 20.000.00 Swiss Francs annualy. I > said that as an indivdual I can not afford to pay such a price for a three > minute statement. He proposed that I should write down my intervention and > promised that this will be published on the open part of the ITU website (you > know that 80 per cent of ITU documents are not available to the public). > > Another example was the preparatory meeting for the WSIS 2010 Forum, which > took place at the ITU Montbrillant building in Geneva in February 2010. The > podium which explained the planned programme for the WSIS Forum was filled > with representatives of intergovernmental organizations only. It was chaired > by Houlin Zhao the now re-elected Deputy Secretary General of the ITU. When I > asked him in the public debate about the principle of multistakeholderism and > why no representatives of civil society and private sector are on the podium > he replied, that UNESCO (which was on the podium) has hundreds of NGOs > accredited and ITU has hundreds of private sector members. This is enough to > meet the criteria of multistakeholderism. Wow! > > Lisbon April 2009 and Geneva February 2010 rememberd my at the painful > discussions on the "Rules of Procedures" during PrepCom1 at WSIS in June 2002. > There was a general impression that with WSIS I, WGIG, WSIS II and the IGF we > moved forward towards a truly multistakeholder dialogue, inspired by the > Internet Governance definition, as a guiding principle accepted even by the > Heads of State. However obviously some governments do not (and/or will not) > remember what they signed and secondly they have a special interpretation of > the agreed texts. > > On the one hand one could argue that the Russian speech is just one point of > view of one ITU member state. Personally I do not see that this position has a > chance to get consensus by the whole Plenipotentiary Conference, where all > governments have to agree. On the other hand the statement makes clear that > the battle of 2005 is not over but has just restarted. > > One scenario could be that the ITU discussion is used by some governments to > test out how far they can go in the UNGA discussion on continuation and > improvement of the IGF. The "improvement" debate is for 2011 and the decision > will be made by the UNGA in November 2011. With other words, a WSIS Forum in > May 2011 in New York (is the site already decided?) and an IGF in September > 2011 in Nairobi would compete against each other, evaluated then by the > governments of the UN member states in November 2011. > > Another target of the Russian initiative could be to prepare the ground for a > third WSIS in 2015. The deal in Guadalajara could be that the ITU gives up > (for the moment) to becomne a RIR but would get a mandate to organize a 3rd > WSIS. Under a WSIS umbrella governments would get another opportunity to work > towards a model, where ICANN is pushed into an intergovenrmental framewok. If > people are interested into the various ideas they should go back to "model 3" > and "model 4" of the WGIG report from 2005. BTW, remember the ITU > Plenipotentiary Conference 1998 in Minneapolis, when ITU gave up (for the > moment) its intention to get the hand over the DNS and IP addresses via the > IAHC but got as a compensation the mandate to start the WSIS process. > > No new arguments, no new ideas. Old wine in new bottles. But 2010 is not 2005 > and not 1998. We have one billion more Internet users and dozens of more > problems (CC, IOT, SN etc.) which have only little to do with the DNS. They > call for more multistakeholder dialog and bottom up PDP in an open and > transparent environment and not for less. As it was said hundred times in > 2005: The political challenges of the 21st century can not be settled with > the diplomatic instruments of the 20th century. We have to be innovative and > have to create something which is able to manage these challenges. ICANN and > IGF is not the end of history. In contrary it is the beginning of a new > historical phase. But we have to look and move forward, not backwards. > > What could be done? > > 1. IGC members, in particular from developing countries, should try to contact > their national representatives participating in Guadalajara (and in the > forthcoming UNGA discussion in the 2nd Committee) to explain them the > background of the battle to enhanced their knowledge and understanding of the > various dimensions of the issue > > 2. The IGC should work on a broader document on the future of Internet > Governance with special parts on "improvement" of ICANN and the IGF. A first > version could be presented at the forthcoming November IGF/MAG consultations > in Geneva. > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > > > Wolfgang > ________________________________ > > Von: Norbert Klein im Auftrag von Norbert Klein > Gesendet: Sa 09.10.2010 19:23 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF > > > > On 10/09/2010 12:40 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> Dear Bill, >> >> You are definitely pointing a major concern that should have IGC take >> a strong position against as well as raise this issue in the upcoming >> open consultation as well as the CSTD IGF improvements working group. >> Do you deem it feasible that we use this thread to develop a position >> statement from IGC to both the IGF and CSTD against the issue? >> > I really hope something like this will start. > > > Norbert > >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:20 PM, William Drake >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> This is related to the message I just sent concerning the ITU/GAC proposal, >>> but it merits a different thread. The list discussion has all been building >>> off the Kevin Murphy piece Wolfgang circulated. Alas, the article being >>> ICANN-oriented did not bother to take note of another part of the RCC >>> proposal that should be of some concern here. The Russian text includes a >>> section on The Future of the Internet Governance Forum that says, inter >>> alia, >>> >>> "The WSIS Forum 2010 was held in May 2010 in Geneva, and the venue for the >>> next one, in 2011, is the United Nations headquarters in New York. The >>> question of Internet governance is just one of the many questions raised by >>> WSIS, and it would appear logical that IGF should in future be held as part >>> of the WSIS Forum in order for there to be a common platform for all >>> stakeholders seeking to implement WSIS outcomes. This will serve to broaden >>> the audience, particularly within developing countries, and reduce costs for >>> organizers and participants alike. Proposal: To consider IGF as a part of >>> the WSIS Forum in the interests of combining efforts, facilitating >>> participation, especially for developing-country representatives, reducing >>> costs and avoiding duplication of effort." >>> >>> So voila. This isn't exactly news either, I had ITU staffers tell me in >>> Tunis when the IGF was endorsed that "we'll be running this thing in five >>> years." There's always been a contingent of governments, generally the >>> same ones supporting ITU uber ICANN, arguing that ITU should have the IGF; >>> indeed, the Russians said this in Tunis, and insisted on the inclusion in >>> the mandate of those provisions about ITU competence etc. And Toure et al >>> have in the past held up the WTPF, the WSIS Forum, etc as evidence that the >>> ITU does this sort of thing better. All of which harks back to our earlier >>> debate on the WSIS Forum and whether it would be a swell idea to hold it in >>> NYC where UN GA reps could see what a proper UN forum looks like, etc. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> *********************************************************** >>> 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 >>> www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake >>> *********************************************************** >>> > > > -- > If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit > The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English. > > This is the latest weekly editorial of The Mirror: > > The Influence of the Internet on Cambodia > Sunday, 3.10.2010 > > http://tinyurl.com/32suhs5 > (to read it, click on the line above.) > > And here is something new from time to time - at least every weekend: > The NEW ADDRESS of The Mirror: > > http://www.cambodiamirror.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 -- Janna Quitney Anderson Director of Imagining the Internet www.imaginingtheinternet.org Associate Professor of Communications Director of Internet Projects School of Communications Elon University andersj at elon.edu (336) 278-5733 (o) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Oct 10 15:21:23 2010 From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Glaser) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:21:23 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CB21233.3050305@nic.br> *Congratulations Izumi Aizu as new IGC Coordinator. Wish you all the best. * *best regards Hartmut Glaser* ================================== On 10/10/2010 01:19, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I am pleased to announce the results of the 2010 IGF coordinator > elections. All candidates polled respectably, indicating that they > were all well-qualified nominees for the post. However, we have a > clear winner. Congratulations and welcome to my new colleague, Izumi > Aizu. > > There were 107 attempts to vote, of which 103 were valid responses. > The invalid responses were two respondents who commenced the survey > but did not answer compulsory questions (one "Are you a member of the > IGC" and the other, having answered that "Yes", not answering "Have > you already voted"), another respondent who abandoned the survey > before voting for a coordinator and tried again later successfully, > and one who attempted to vote for coordinator twice. > > Of the 103 valid responses, 101 were from self-identified IGC members, > 95 of whom claimed not to have voted already. Four of these remaining > qualified voters did not choose to vote for a coordinator. Of the > remaining 91 votes cast, Izumi received 52. Thanks also to Rafik who > received 13 votes and Marilia who received 26. > > The public statistics for the poll, and a spreadsheet with the results > of the election are both available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/38. > A photo of the new coordinators is available at > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/17. > > I will write separately about the charter vote and the nominations > committee. > > Here are some questions you may have about the results (though I can't > really call them "frequently asked"): > > Q: Why do the public statistics show 100 (not 103) responses? > > A: Because by design of the software, these statistics exclude > "incomplete" responses. Of the four respondents who did not choose a > coordinator, one just skipped that question, whereas the others quit > the survey in progress. The former's response is included in the > public statistics, and the others are not. > > Q. Why do the public statistics show 98 (not 101) voters asserting > membership of the IGC? > > A. See the answer to the previous question. > > Q: Why do the public statistics show 92 (not 95) persons claiming not > to have already voted? > > A: See the answer to the previous question. > > Q. Why do there appear to be some votes missing from the CSV file > (based on the consecutive numbering)? > > A. The missing ones at the beginning where from testing by me and > Ginger. There are a small number of missing votes where I deleted > them because the person mistakenly claimed to have voted already (see > below). > > Q. Why do three people appear to have voted twice? > > A. One of these people mistakenly answered that he had voted already. > I told him to vote again using the token sent to his other email > address. Another gave up before getting to the coordinator vote, then > started again; her first response was treated as invalid. The third > does appear to be a double vote; in this case, the first response has > been treated as invalid and the second, more complete response taken > as definitive. It is not counted in the public statistics, but is > retained in the spreadsheet of results. > > Q. Why did some people say that they had already voted, when they hadn't? > > A. I don't know, maybe they didn't read the question carefully enough? > Anyone who contacted me to ask for the opportunity to re-cast their > vote, was able to do so. A few, unfortunately, didn't contact me, and > missed out on the opportunity to vote... > > Q. How did one person vote anonymously? > > A. It was not really anonymous, they just didn't provide their name. > Their email address is news [at] chania.di.uoa.gr > . Anyway, theirs was one of the invalid > responses that was not counted, as they did not answer a compulsory > question. > > Q. What is the difference between "No", "None" and "N/A"? > > A. "No" means you were asked a Yes/No question and chose the latter. > "None", for the coordinator vote, means you were qualified to vote > and chose to support none of the candidates. "N/A" means either you > were not qualified to vote, or you didn't answer that question. > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement > in 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect > consumer rights around the world. > _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_ > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . > Don't print this email unless necessary. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Sun Oct 10 15:36:09 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 21:36:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07262@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4CB215A9.6020908@apc.org> Great to have you as coordinator Izumi! Congratulations. Marilia and Rafik... your willingness to take on this role speaks a lot for your courage and commitment. Your time will come :) Ginger... you will be missed! Thanks for lots of excellent and hard work, and for caring not just about the issues but also about the people inside the IGC. Jeremy, thanks to you too for being a really good coordinator. Good that you will still be around. Anriette ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director association for progressive communications www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From qshatti at gmail.com Sun Oct 10 15:41:41 2010 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 22:41:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Colleagues: I would like to congratulate Izumi as our new IGC Coordinator and wish him all the best. I would like to thank our colleagues who nominated themselves for the position of the IGC coordinator for their will and effort to contribute to the IGC activities wishing them the success. I would like also to support Rafik statement on geographical balance. Regards, Qusai AlShatti On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I am pleased to announce the results of the 2010 IGF coordinator elections. >  All candidates polled respectably, indicating that they were all > well-qualified nominees for the post.  However, we have a clear winner. >  Congratulations and welcome to my new colleague, Izumi Aizu. > > There were 107 attempts to vote, of which 103 were valid responses.  The > invalid responses were two respondents who commenced the survey but did not > answer compulsory questions (one "Are you a member of the IGC" and the > other, having answered that "Yes", not answering "Have you already voted"), > another respondent who abandoned the survey before voting for a coordinator > and tried again later successfully, and one who attempted to vote for > coordinator twice. > > Of the 103 valid responses, 101 were from self-identified IGC members, 95 of > whom claimed not to have voted already.  Four of these remaining qualified > voters did not choose to vote for a coordinator.  Of the remaining 91 votes > cast, Izumi received 52.  Thanks also to Rafik who received 13 votes and > Marilia who received 26. > > The public statistics for the poll, and a spreadsheet with the results of > the election are both available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/38.  A photo > of the new coordinators is available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/17. > > I will write separately about the charter vote and the nominations > committee. > > Here are some questions you may have about the results (though I can't > really call them "frequently asked"): > > Q: Why do the public statistics show 100 (not 103) responses? > > A: Because by design of the software, these statistics exclude "incomplete" > responses.  Of the four respondents who did not choose a coordinator, one > just skipped that question, whereas the others quit the survey in progress. >  The former's response is included in the public statistics, and the others > are not. > > Q. Why do the public statistics show 98 (not 101) voters asserting > membership of the IGC? > > A. See the answer to the previous question. > > Q: Why do the public statistics show 92 (not 95) persons claiming not to > have already voted? > > A: See the answer to the previous question. > > Q. Why do there appear to be some votes missing from the CSV file (based on > the consecutive numbering)? > > A. The missing ones at the beginning where from testing by me and Ginger. >  There are a small number of missing votes where I deleted them because the > person mistakenly claimed to have voted already (see below). > > Q. Why do three people appear to have voted twice? > > A. One of these people mistakenly answered that he had voted already.  I > told him to vote again using the token sent to his other email address. >  Another gave up before getting to the coordinator vote, then started again; > her first response was treated as invalid.  The third does appear to be a > double vote; in this case, the first response has been treated as invalid > and the second, more complete response taken as definitive.  It is not > counted in the public statistics, but is retained in the spreadsheet of > results. > > Q. Why did some people say that they had already voted, when they hadn't? > > A. I don't know, maybe they didn't read the question carefully enough? >  Anyone who contacted me to ask for the opportunity to re-cast their vote, > was able to do so.  A few, unfortunately, didn't contact me, and missed out > on the opportunity to vote... > > Q. How did one person vote anonymously? > > A. It was not really anonymous, they just didn't provide their name.  Their > email address is news [at] chania.di.uoa.gr.  Anyway, theirs was one of the > invalid responses that was not counted, as they did not answer a compulsory > question. > > Q. What is the difference between "No", "None" and "N/A"? > > A. "No" means you were asked a Yes/No question and chose the latter. >  "None", for the coordinator vote, means you were qualified to vote and > chose to support none of the candidates.  "N/A" means either you were not > qualified to vote, or you didn't answer that question. > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > CI is 50 > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer > rights around the world. > http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Oct 10 15:53:48 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 00:53:48 +0500 Subject: AW: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF In-Reply-To: <334EA574-A85B-4274-96C3-AF1AC3A71591@ciroap.org> References: <3A941447-3CCE-4A22-824D-A694DDAD8B5F@graduateinstitute.ch> <4CB0A4FC.9080704@gmx.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07263@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <334EA574-A85B-4274-96C3-AF1AC3A71591@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I truly believe that we need Jeremy to play an important role in constructing and getting this message through. Surely now Izumi is also here with us in a profound role that can help carrying this message forward! It can be one statement or it can be a set of two statements so that we can also use it during CSTD WG meetings? I think we need to collectively reposition ourselves around these statements and tackle the issue together so that IGC's voice and stance is both clearly heard and noted. -- Fouad On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 10/10/2010, at 5:45 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> 2. The IGC should work on a broader document on the future of Internet Governance with special parts on "improvement" of ICANN and the IGF. A first version could be presented at the forthcoming November IGF/MAG consultations in Geneva. > > This would tie in very well with the statement that we should make to UNDESA about Enhanced Cooperation by 1 December (http://tinyurl.com/enhanced-cooperation, background to this is no longer online at the UN, but see instead http://tinyurl.com/brazil-ec-blog).  Indeed, for convenience, I suggest that perhaps they should be one and the same statement. > > I will be travelling a lot in the next month or so, so I will consult with Izumi about who should guide this process. > > -- > 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Oct 10 16:08:52 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 01:08:52 +0500 Subject: [governance] CORRECTED nomcom pool In-Reply-To: <5D0021D2-4D27-4D45-98F9-3F93A9A9EDD0@ciroap.org> References: <5D0021D2-4D27-4D45-98F9-3F93A9A9EDD0@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thank you for taking note of the issue with the quick amendment before the ratification Jeremy! Take Care. -- Fouad Bajwa On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > My apologies to everyone; the list of 28 names for the nominating committee > pool that I sent earlier was completely wrong.  This came about through a > simple but serious error in copying and pasting from the wrong column of > names. > Here is the correct list, double-checked this time: > Anupam Agrawal > AHM Bazlur Rahmna > Babatope Soremi > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > Dave Kissoondoyal > Erick Iriarte > Fearghas McKay > Ginger Paque > Gurumurthy K > Hanane Boujemi > Hempal Shrestha > Ian Peter > Imran Ahmed Shah > Jacqueline Morris > Jamil Goheer > Jeremy Hunsinger > Julian Casasbuenas G > Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare > Lyman Chapin > Marília Maciel > Mohamed Zahran > Omar Kaminski > Qusai Al-Shatti > Rudi Vansnick > Shahzad Ahmad > Siranush Vardanyan > Solomon Gizaw > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > Sorry again to all concerned.  If there are any further errors (though I now > think not), please bring them to my attention before next Saturday when the > random draw will occur. > > -- > > 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. > -- 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Oct 10 17:12:13 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:12:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07263@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <3A941447-3CCE-4A22-824D-A694DDAD8B5F@graduateinstitute.ch> <4CB0A4FC.9080704@gmx.net>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07263@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF3BF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, 1st, I add my congrats to Izumi and thanks to Rafik and Marilla. 2nd, I agree with Wolfgang the Plenipot machinations should be seen in broader context. The likelihood of getting something objectionable agreed to this time around is unlikely. But they'll be back, whether at next Plenipot or at UNGA or WSIS Forum or...IGF. a) which gets to main point, how well can IGC manage to broaden its view to simultaneously engage with and monitor whole range of bodies and actions in play in Internet Governance in 2011. IGF helps of course but...we are facing a challenge. 3rd,Note that while at the Plenipotentiary level the traditional rules of the 145-year-old ITU game are clearly evident, and political posturing is dominant, at lower levels of course cs has long participated as invited experts often, without the huge or any fees. (eg, see Lee making fun of early ITU proposals to regulate VoIP as unworkable at www.itu.int/osg/spu/ni/iptel/workshop/mcknight.pdf - and I give credit, some at ITU have sense of humor - I've been invited back since ; ). 4th, to expect a perpetually broke international organization that governments expect to raise significant income from document sales and sector memberships - to forego that income, or carve out exceptions for individuals and civil society - just ain't happening on any broad scale. At least it hasn't yet, and some of us have been working on cracking this nut for..sigh, decades. We've won some and lost some over the years. a) and let's remember that ITU is one of ICANN's parents, there at conception, even on the first blind date, so to a certain extent we are dealing with the older authority figure vs the teenager who wants to pretend it never had anything to do with - mom or dad. b) not that teen is perfect either....but anyway that is discussion for different day, as to what elements of present ITU critique of ICANN GAC are on target, and what not. 5th, in ITU case, the real cs representation question is what Avri and Bill bandied about, ie either persuading an existing CS organization to decide to be our house techie org/ITU-T (and/or D) sector member, ie raise the $20k, and commit $X more to support more or less standing representation whether by an organizational rep or by multiple cs individuals who are able to come in under that org's membership. Maybe one joins T and another D....and shares notes and costs? And permits say IGC members - to participate as honorary members of either org?? ; )If/when any of us have $ and time to attend ITU meetings. Which is time-consuming and expensive....and cs as whole hasn't cared enough about ITU to bother. And foundations and universities yawn if cs types start talking up ITU. ISOC and ITU on other hand have had a more or less amicable coordination and division of labor arrangement in place for years, with Harvard's Scott Bradner - certified good guy - the liaison. Maybe it has changed lately, I haven't been paying attention. Not that it's easy but it is ongoing. ICANN is free to do the same, and if/when in ITU's house it must like everyone else play by house rules. I have previously suggested it is past time for ICANN if only for self-defense to be on the ground in Geneva, permanently. Or at least appoint a specific liaison a la Scott Bradner...but that is for ICANN to decide. Starting a new ITU/cswatch org as Avri and Bill spoke of...is doable too, if folks have time and energy and can find the $. 6th, with regard to one of our higher ambitions, of initiating change in ITU-CS relations....given that it is an international treaty organization only certain things are possible....without a change in the treaty. Therefore, if CS cares enough about ITU to decide (at least within IGC) that ITU reform is an objective, then we are beginning a 4-8 year process, ie through 1-2 Plenipot cycles, and good luck to us. It can be done but it is a slow slog. 7th, while I have suggested it is real hard to change ITU, in fact the org is always changing. For example some of us helped past Sec Gens - in our individual capacity of course - kill off the CCIR which had outlived its usefulness. Bill, or maybe Marilyn, if we buy them enough drinks, could tell us near-endless behind the scenes tales of when they helped - or failed at - rewriting ITU agendas... 8th, Point is, if we had a specific, plausible plan or suggestion for change in ITU we could pursue it. Over time. Meaning rather than just playing defense we can go on the offensive too. I think Wolfgang's note is a good start on some of the stakes, but recalling we are playing a mutli-dimensional global chess game, we can't just worry about Plenipot, which is too far along this time and unlikely to be subject to outside influence at this point. (If more substantial rumors of bad decisions getting rammed through are proven, then there are ways to undermine that, but at moment we just have a Russian shot across the bow and no surprise.) 9th, and I promise i will stop soon, 2011 should indeed be seen as a pivotal year for tipping - IGF, GAID, UNGA, WSIS Forum, ICANN, and who knows even ITU, in one direction or another. Shaping/setting the agenda is our task, meeting locations and timing is just the playing field. (Though I do need to note the ironic twist that moving a WSIS Forum meeting further from Geneva is seen still as making it more ITUish, when one might think just the opposite.) In sum, we play our game, across venues, for cs objectives. CS and yeah business interests, in spite of international politics, remain the prime movers in most of these fora, including ITU-T, for which ITU staff play mainly secretarial/support role. So we need first to step back i suggest and decide what our prime objectives are for 2011...and then pass a very heavy load to Izumi and Jeremy to help us execute on. Starting with the suggested statement is a good 1st step, and if well done, can be recycled in various ways through the year of agenda setting. best, Lee ________________________________________ From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2010 5:45 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Klein; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: AW: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF Hi Bill and others thanks for pointing to the IGF part of the Russian speech. Both together (the attack aginst ICANN & the IGF) look like an integrated strategy where the key idea is to bring the Internet under an intergovernmental mechanism and to kill the concept of "multistakeholderism". In the "Russian model" non-governmental stakeholders will be "invited" only under certain circumstances, which are defined and controlled by governments. This is the old hierarchical top down policy model. This is how the ITU works. This is how the ITU organized its "World Telecommunication Policy Forum" (WTPF). Here is my personal story from the WTPF 2009 in Lisbon. There was no free access to the WTPF. As an individual (or NGO) you had to write an application, explaining why you want to participate. This application was checked by an unknown third party. I applied and after a couple of days I got the permission for registration. The three day Forum was organized in a way that the whole first day was filled with official speeches by governmental delegations. There was no debate. There was a speaking order, reserved for governmental speakers only on Day 1. People like me with a NGO-badge had to find a chair in the back of the room. There was a clear seperation between the governmental and the non-governmental rows. On Day 2, when working sessions started, I wanted to make a comment to one of the speeches. But the Chair (my friend Abdullah from Saudi-Arabia who was also member of the WGIG) apologized with friendly words and explained to me that according to the rules of procedures I am not allowed to speak. Non-govenmental speakers could speak only if they are "invited" or of they are "private sector members of the ITU". As a private sector member you have to pay a membership fee of about 20.000.00 Swiss Francs annualy. I said that as an indivdual I can not afford to pay such a price for a three minute statement. He proposed that I should write down my intervention and promised that this will be published on the open part of the ITU website (you know that 80 per cent of ITU documents are not available to the public). Another example was the preparatory meeting for the WSIS 2010 Forum, which took place at the ITU Montbrillant building in Geneva in February 2010. The podium which explained the planned programme for the WSIS Forum was filled with representatives of intergovernmental organizations only. It was chaired by Houlin Zhao the now re-elected Deputy Secretary General of the ITU. When I asked him in the public debate about the principle of multistakeholderism and why no representatives of civil society and private sector are on the podium he replied, that UNESCO (which was on the podium) has hundreds of NGOs accredited and ITU has hundreds of private sector members. This is enough to meet the criteria of multistakeholderism. Wow! Lisbon April 2009 and Geneva February 2010 rememberd my at the painful discussions on the "Rules of Procedures" during PrepCom1 at WSIS in June 2002. There was a general impression that with WSIS I, WGIG, WSIS II and the IGF we moved forward towards a truly multistakeholder dialogue, inspired by the Internet Governance definition, as a guiding principle accepted even by the Heads of State. However obviously some governments do not (and/or will not) remember what they signed and secondly they have a special interpretation of the agreed texts. On the one hand one could argue that the Russian speech is just one point of view of one ITU member state. Personally I do not see that this position has a chance to get consensus by the whole Plenipotentiary Conference, where all governments have to agree. On the other hand the statement makes clear that the battle of 2005 is not over but has just restarted. One scenario could be that the ITU discussion is used by some governments to test out how far they can go in the UNGA discussion on continuation and improvement of the IGF. The "improvement" debate is for 2011 and the decision will be made by the UNGA in November 2011. With other words, a WSIS Forum in May 2011 in New York (is the site already decided?) and an IGF in September 2011 in Nairobi would compete against each other, evaluated then by the governments of the UN member states in November 2011. Another target of the Russian initiative could be to prepare the ground for a third WSIS in 2015. The deal in Guadalajara could be that the ITU gives up (for the moment) to becomne a RIR but would get a mandate to organize a 3rd WSIS. Under a WSIS umbrella governments would get another opportunity to work towards a model, where ICANN is pushed into an intergovenrmental framewok. If people are interested into the various ideas they should go back to "model 3" and "model 4" of the WGIG report from 2005. BTW, remember the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 1998 in Minneapolis, when ITU gave up (for the moment) its intention to get the hand over the DNS and IP addresses via the IAHC but got as a compensation the mandate to start the WSIS process. No new arguments, no new ideas. Old wine in new bottles. But 2010 is not 2005 and not 1998. We have one billion more Internet users and dozens of more problems (CC, IOT, SN etc.) which have only little to do with the DNS. They call for more multistakeholder dialog and bottom up PDP in an open and transparent environment and not for less. As it was said hundred times in 2005: The political challenges of the 21st century can not be settled with the diplomatic instruments of the 20th century. We have to be innovative and have to create something which is able to manage these challenges. ICANN and IGF is not the end of history. In contrary it is the beginning of a new historical phase. But we have to look and move forward, not backwards. What could be done? 1. IGC members, in particular from developing countries, should try to contact their national representatives participating in Guadalajara (and in the forthcoming UNGA discussion in the 2nd Committee) to explain them the background of the battle to enhanced their knowledge and understanding of the various dimensions of the issue 2. The IGC should work on a broader document on the future of Internet Governance with special parts on "improvement" of ICANN and the IGF. A first version could be presented at the forthcoming November IGF/MAG consultations in Geneva. Best wishes wolfgang Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Norbert Klein im Auftrag von Norbert Klein Gesendet: Sa 09.10.2010 19:23 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF On 10/09/2010 12:40 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Dear Bill, > > You are definitely pointing a major concern that should have IGC take > a strong position against as well as raise this issue in the upcoming > open consultation as well as the CSTD IGF improvements working group. > Do you deem it feasible that we use this thread to develop a position > statement from IGC to both the IGF and CSTD against the issue? > I really hope something like this will start. Norbert > > > On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:20 PM, William Drake > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> This is related to the message I just sent concerning the ITU/GAC proposal, but it merits a different thread. The list discussion has all been building off the Kevin Murphy piece Wolfgang circulated. Alas, the article being ICANN-oriented did not bother to take note of another part of the RCC proposal that should be of some concern here. The Russian text includes a section on The Future of the Internet Governance Forum that says, inter alia, >> >> "The WSIS Forum 2010 was held in May 2010 in Geneva, and the venue for the next one, in 2011, is the United Nations headquarters in New York. The question of Internet governance is just one of the many questions raised by WSIS, and it would appear logical that IGF should in future be held as part of the WSIS Forum in order for there to be a common platform for all stakeholders seeking to implement WSIS outcomes. This will serve to broaden the audience, particularly within developing countries, and reduce costs for organizers and participants alike. Proposal: To consider IGF as a part of the WSIS Forum in the interests of combining efforts, facilitating participation, especially for developing-country representatives, reducing costs and avoiding duplication of effort." >> >> So voila. This isn't exactly news either, I had ITU staffers tell me in Tunis when the IGF was endorsed that "we'll be running this thing in five years." There's always been a contingent of governments, generally the same ones supporting ITU uber ICANN, arguing that ITU should have the IGF; indeed, the Russians said this in Tunis, and insisted on the inclusion in the mandate of those provisions about ITU competence etc. And Toure et al have in the past held up the WTPF, the WSIS Forum, etc as evidence that the ITU does this sort of thing better. All of which harks back to our earlier debate on the WSIS Forum and whether it would be a swell idea to hold it in NYC where UN GA reps could see what a proper UN forum looks like, etc. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> *********************************************************** >> 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 >> www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake >> *********************************************************** >> -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English. This is the latest weekly editorial of The Mirror: The Influence of the Internet on Cambodia Sunday, 3.10.2010 http://tinyurl.com/32suhs5 (to read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new from time to time - at least every weekend: The NEW ADDRESS of The Mirror: http://www.cambodiamirror.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun Oct 10 18:42:09 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:42:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07263@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <3A941447-3CCE-4A22-824D-A694DDAD8B5F@graduateinstitute.ch> <4CB0A4FC.9080704@gmx.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07263@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D709084E8236@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > Hi Bill and others > > thanks for pointing to the IGF part of the Russian speech. Both > together (the attack aginst ICANN & the IGF) look like an integrated > strategy where the key idea is to bring the Internet under an > intergovernmental mechanism and to kill the concept of > "multistakeholderism". In the "Russian model" non-governmental > stakeholders will be "invited" only under certain circumstances, which May I be so bold as to ask, what is new about this? The ITU and (much more importantly, its major member states) have been against MS-ism and for inter-governmentalism consistently and unrelentingly for the past decade. All the incidents you recount, Wolfgang, could have been drawn from WSIS experience. The major advocates of that point of view have been, consistently, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and a few other Arabs states. Nothing new there. Brazil and South Africa were originally (in the days of WSIS) making the same noises only stronger, but have since backed off. So insofar as there is something new, it seems that the intergovernmentalists are gradually losing support. My advice: in challenging ITU/intergovernmentalism/sovereigntism, etc., remember that the point is to give _people_ rights to self-govern. It is NOT to defend existing IG institutions. --MM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun Oct 10 18:57:08 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:57:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D709084E8237@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] I share this opinion, but we just had this discussion at the Open Mic hour of the ARIN meeting less than 10 minutes ago. Folk seem to think that the US would have to pass laws effecting the ITU decisions, since they are bound by treaty. For all its virtues, the internet technical community, which has (happily) evolved in relative separation if not isolation from ITU for 30 years, is the last place I would go for a definitive analysis and understanding of the ITU and the politics and law of intergovernmental institutions. As convenient bogeyman, ITU distracts our attention from much more direct, real threats of governmental intervention - among them the GAC itself, ACTA, U.S. in rem jurisdiction, the IANA contract, cyber militarization, regulation of financial intermediaries, etc., etc., etc. True, ITU could be used as the vehicle for intrusive forms of communications regulation, but so could ICANN, WTO, WIPO, OECD. What matters is which powerful governments want it do so. The proper level of analysis, therefore is focused on the interests and motives of specific powerful nation-states and coalitions of nation-states - not on the ITU itself. And yes, I understand that the ITU (like ICANN or OECD) has a permanent staff that has its own bureaucratic interests in survival and expansion. But in that regard the numbers are clear, ITU is declining in size and wealth and, um, certain other international organizations are not. --MM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun Oct 10 18:58:59 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:58:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <4CAF4BBD.8080507@itforchange.net> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4CAF4BBD.8080507@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D709084E8238@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Very astute observations, Parminder. But what prevents such a globally centralized process from being hijacked by states, or a typical state-business coalition such as that formed around copyright protection? More substantially, I remain of the firm view, expressed often here, that our best bet is a new global IG policy and supervisory dispensation, which inter alia replaces US's supervision over the ICANN ( with ICANN continuing to do all the technical functions it does at present ), and which is more more open, with multistakeholder participation - a new age body. I am also of the view that such a body (with the characteristics we want it to have, or close about ) was more likely at WSIS, more likely in the 2007 than today, still more likely today then it will be the next year, and its likelihood will keep coming down as time passes and more and more governments understand the Internet and how to control it.... There may just still be time. The alternatives to what I propose is an emerging IG regime, which is shaping up right now in front of our eyes, with the following compoments - greater ITU role, plus ACTA kind of plurilateral treaties undemocratically imposed on less powerful governments, plus national governments doing arbitrary and ad hoc controls and regulation over the Internet plus ad hoc GAC's interventions, without then being based on an clear principles, plus of course US being able to do anything it wants to the global critical Internet resources whenever it wants to (see discussions on COICA Bill in the US). The best way forward for civil society is to support a global process of developing general principles for Internet policies, along with new institutional mechanism to overlook the implementation of these principles and policies. And it will be best if civil society takes lead in this. That would our best best way to get as much foot in as possible..... I just keep hoping one day we will wake up to this imperative :) 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 karl at cavebear.com Sun Oct 10 23:23:55 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 20:23:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <4CAF4BBD.8080507@itforchange.net> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4CAF4BBD.8080507@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4CB2834B.1030203@cavebear.com> On 10/08/2010 09:50 AM, parminder wrote: > ... ( with ICANN continuing to do all the technical functions it does at > present ) As a matter of curiosity, could you enumerate what those "technical functions" are? The reason that I ask is that I have a hard time finding any technical function that is performed by ICANN. IANA does some, but that is IANA, a severable and transferable function that is not really part of ICANN. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com Mon Oct 11 01:01:18 2010 From: siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com (Siranush Vardanyan) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:01:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results In-Reply-To: <4CB215A9.6020908@apc.org> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07262@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> ,<4CB215A9.6020908@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear Izumi, Congratulations for becoming the IGC coordinator. I am sure you will be very good in this position as usually you are. Congrats also to Marilia and Rafik for having so many votes, which means that youth voices should be for sure included in the main area of IG focus. Best Siranush Siranush Vardanyan Armenia > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 pwilson at apnic.net Mon Oct 11 01:15:16 2010 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:15:16 +1000 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <2BDA984F-6E03-481C-9087-20D5CD905A76@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <13F6E94D-AFD1-4658-96FC-2293B6622DC7@acm.org> <46E0BAAE-A8A5-4661-9381-A918D5EFF960@acm.org> <2BDA984F-6E03-481C-9087-20D5CD905A76@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <49E04A450BA9938AA6F4D86F@dynamic153.apnic.net> --On 9 October 2010 12:03:23 PM +0200 William Drake wrote: > Hi > [...] > it'd be > sensible for IGC members to follow events in the ITU more, inter alia > since this rather than the IGF is where the real intergovernmental stuff > is happening. It's a pity there are no CS organizations prepared to test > the secretariat's frequent declarations of openness to CS participation > and actually apply to be sector members in ITU-T or ITU-D; the only > related entity participating is ISOC, which has made many good > interventions against heavy intergovernmentalism but has not sought to be > a vehicle for wider member/community/CS engagement etc. Bill, In addition to ISOC, some of the RIRs have paid Sector membership fees to the ITU, in D and/or T sectors, as a means to access documents and ITU events. You should be aware of the fees involved: http://www.itu.int/members/sectmem/fees.html Which correspond to minimum annual fees of 32,800 Swiss Francs in T or R Sectors, and 8,200 in the D sector (or 4,100 in developing countries). There are additional fees payable for participation in (described as "defraying the expenses of") the Plenipot. This amounts to something over 5,000 Francs per sector member organisation. And as you know you can replace a Franc with a USD these days as a rough conversion. Paul Wilson APNIC. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pwilson at apnic.net Mon Oct 11 01:31:41 2010 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:31:41 +1000 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <49E04A450BA9938AA6F4D86F@dynamic153.apnic.net> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <13F6E94D-AFD1-4658-96FC-2293B6622DC7@acm.org> <46E0BAAE-A8A5-4661-9381-A918D5EFF960@acm.org> <2BDA984F-6E03-481C-9087-20D5CD905A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <49E04A450BA9938AA6F4D86F@dynamic153.apnic.net> Message-ID: <166668F835C75A81E58575B3@dynamic153.apnic.net> > > There are additional fees payable for participation in (described as > "defraying the expenses of") the Plenipot. This amounts to something > over 5,000 Francs per sector member organisation. 5,128 Francs to be precise, per the attached document, which also implies that an exemption is available for some organisations. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: S10-PP-C-0017!!MSW-E.doc Type: application/msword Size: 83456 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Oct 11 02:15:52 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:15:52 +0800 Subject: [governance] TENTATIVE FINAL draft response to MAG questionnaire Message-ID: <4FCE6895-ACD0-4B05-A37F-C3C02CF8989B@ciroap.org> I don't want to rush anybody, but since I will be travelling a lot in the next few weeks it would be ideal if we could finalise our response to the MAG questionnaire soon (in any case, it must be presented by 24 October). To this end, I'm posting this as a tentatively final draft, which I think captures the points made to date. From now on, please try to limit your comments to precisely worded (and preferably minor) amendments. Depending on how things go, I would then like to put this to a consensus call at the end of the week, and we can move on to the next statement on Enhanced Cooperation and the ITU vs IGF/ICANN. As before, the latest amendments in this draft will show underlined or struck out if you have a suitable email client or can consult the Web archives at http://lists.cpsr.org/. 1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions? The IGC broadly supports the continuation of a balanced multistakeholder advisory group. In its current role, the MAG has performed reasonably. However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads where it may be called upon to produce more tangible outputs. The qualification of the MAG to steer the IGF through this challenging phase of its evolution is less clear. We would like the MAG to play an active role in any possible improvements towards a greater outcome orientation that may be suggested by the ongoing IGF improvement process. Since there is no other clear body or structure in and of the IGF, any possible suggestions for improvements like inter-sessional work, choosing of key issues for more focussed work, working groups on issues, background papers etc will require the MAG to play an important part. To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, the IGF may require more direct lines of accountability to its constituencies, more balanced sectoral representation, and proactive leadership. Reducing the size of the MAG might also improve its effectiveness. It is also very important that the established process by which one-third of the MAG members are rotated each year is executed methodically, so that the composition of the MAG is completely refreshed every three years. Moreover, MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for multistakeholder comment and participation, in a variety of other institutions, processes and fora, both online and offline. Opening up meetings of the MAG to observers, either face to face or remotely, could also assist in making it more accessible and responsive to the broader community. Finally we ask that when the MAG prepares the IGF's agenda, it should prioritise issues which directly concern the interests of marginalized groups, as they and those working with them (rather than just technical experts) see these issues. This in turn requires that these marginalised groups should be better represented on the MAG. 2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG? As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary for it to become more accountable. Part of this process may involve moving on from the existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary General selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by various parties, pursuant to selection criteria that are not published. An alternative approach that many from civil societythe IGC support is the selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process driven by the stakeholder groups, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints. Although civil societymembers of the IGC broadly agree on this general principle, various different models for implementing are being debated. These include the reestablishment of a civil society umbrella group such as the WSIS civil society plenary, the use of an independent nominating committee, or the assignment of a role to the Internet Governance Caucus itself, whose existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes provide a good model for a broader nominating group. Whatever the precise method used, diverse participation from civil society in the nomination of its representatives must be ensured. Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special privileges that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, and special advisors to the chair, currently possess. If the MAG's processes are opened to broader oversight by the community, such special privileges would soon become redundant. 3. How best to nominate the MAG Chair? At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN Secretary-General. This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG develops into a body whose members are self-selected by the stakeholders. In that case, it could be that the MAG should select its own chair or chairs, and for that position to rotate between the stakeholder groups. In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the role of the Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder agenda, but to facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de facto multi-stakeholder bureau for the IGF that is responsible for facilitating the fulfilment of the mandate in the Tunis Agenda. 4. How best to organize open consultations? There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as meetings held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation from around the world, but as meetings that are held online, with provision for some participants to attend in person at a hub in Geneva, or at other hubs. Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves could come to be considered in the same terms. Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously (ie. through comments and discussions that are contributed over an extended period through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on). It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise an electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF participants as means of contributing to open consultations. In particular, MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity to online discussions outside of their closed mailing list, which limits the profile and accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a whole. 5. How best to link with regional meetings? The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance to a much broader community of Internet users and citizens, but at the same time we must be careful to ensure that these meetings meet the same basic process criteria as the IGF itself, including adequate participation by civil society at all levels. In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to governance processes than governmental and private sector groups, due to funding constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour. This may require that additional efforts be made (and funded where appropriate) to ensure that a plurality of civil society voices are heard in Internet governance processes. It is important that regional meetings play a more important role in IGF agenda-setting and issue-framing. The discussions that take place during the meetings, if summarized in an objectively and timely manner, could represent real regional contributions to the process. The outcomes of regional meetings should also serve to better clarify and sharpen discussions, reducing the complexity of themes into concrete issues to be addressed at the IGF. 6. How best to link with international processes and institutions? Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to bridge between online and offline discussions, so too there could be rapporteurs whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at the IGF and to forward them to external institutions, and to act as a proactive conduit for feedback from those institutions. Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and workshops, since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in the latter. Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions provided that a better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops back into main sessions is realised. A emerging model for this process (though other possible models may also be explored) is found in the "messages" or "recommendations" produced by national IGFs such IGF-D (Deutschland), and regional IGFs such as the East African IGF and EURODIG. Ideally this would become a two-way process in which the institutions addressed could also turn to the IGF with issues they wished the IGF to address through multi-stakeholder dialogue. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Mon Oct 11 03:08:29 2010 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 08:08:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <783631.88555.qm@web25906.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Hi all, I believe that GAC should have more membership from different Nations. However, any veto power from Governments within the international public policy related to Internet would make it loose its traditional dynamism. Regards. NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul Tel : +257 79 981459 ________________________________ De : "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" À : governance at lists.cpsr.org Envoyé le : Ven 8 octobre 2010, 17h 41min 59s Objet : [governance] ITU vs. ICANN "US and Russia face off over ICANN veto power Kevin Murphy, October 6, 2010, 13:14:29 (UTC), Domain Policy The ruling body of the International Telecommunications Union this week kicked off a major policy-making meeting in Guadalajara, Mexico, and has already seen the US and Russia taking opposing stances over the future control of ICANN. A group of former Soviet nations, chaired by the Russian Federation's Minister of Communications, seems to have proposed that the ITU should give itself veto power over ICANN decisions. A proposal filed by the Regional Commonwealth in the field of Communications (RCC) calls for the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee to be scrapped and replaced by an ITU group. Consideration should be given to the expediency of having the functions of GAC carried out by a specially-constituted group within ITU with the authority to veto decisions adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors. If it is so decided, the ITU Secretary-General should be instructed to consult ICANN on the matter. The proposal was first noted by Gregory Francis at CircleID. It says that the GAC is currently the only avenue open to governments to "defend their interests" but that it has "no decision-making authority and can do no more than express its wishes". It also notes that fewer than 50% of nations are members of the GAC, and that only 20% or fewer actually participate in GAC meetings. The proposal was apparently submitted to the ongoing ITU Plenipotentiary Conference but, in contrast to ICANN's policy of transparency, many ITU documents are only accessible to its members. A reader was kind enough to send me text extracted from the document. I've been unable to verify its authenticity, but I've no particular reason to believe it's bogus. The RCC was set up in 1991 to increase cooperation between telecommunications and postal operators in the post-Soviet era. Its board is comprised of communications ministers from a dozen nations. Its position on ICANN appears to be also held by the Russian government. Igor Shchegolev, its communications minister, is chair of the RCC board. At the Plenipotentiary on Tuesday, Shechegolev said (via Google Translate): We believe that the ITU is capable of such tasks to international public policy, Internet governance, its development and finally, protection of interests of countries in ICANN. Meanwhile, the US has committed itself to the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance as embodied by ICANN. The State Department's Philip Verveer told the conference: the ITU should be a place where the development of the Internet is fostered. The Internet has progressed and evolved in a remarkably successful way under the existing multi-stakeholder arrangements. Changes, especially changes involving inter-governmental controls, are likely to impair the dynamism of the Internet-something we all have an interest in avoiding. ICANN itself has no formal presence at the Plenipotentiary, after ITU secretary-general Hamadoun Toure turned down a request by ICANN president Rod Beckstrom for observer status. The conference carries on until October 22. It's likely that we haven't heard the last of the anti-ICANN rhetoric." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Oct 11 03:22:08 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:52:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] TENTATIVE FINAL draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <4FCE6895-ACD0-4B05-A37F-C3C02CF8989B@ciroap.org> References: <4FCE6895-ACD0-4B05-A37F-C3C02CF8989B@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4CB2BB20.6090502@itforchange.net> On Monday 11 October 2010 11:45 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > ****** > _It is important that regional meetings play a more important role in > IGF agenda-setting and issue-framing. The discussions that take place > during the meetings, if summarized in an objectively and timely > manner, could represent real regional contributions to the process._*** > *** > *** > _ The outcomes of regional meetings should also serve to better > clarify and sharpen discussions, reducing the complexity of themes > into concrete issues to be addressed at the IGF._ > *** > *** > *** > *** > *** > *** > > *** > *** > *** > ****** Before we seek a more formal role for regional meetings (which ones??) in IGF agenda setting and issue framing we need to convince ourselves about what we are talking about here. Can any group get up and say, hey, we are the regional IGF meeting holder, and the outcomes of that meeting are then seen , as we propose here, to have a higher validity in IGF agenda setting and issue framing. As i have said it earlier, with all due respect to those you did all the hard work, this is kind of what happened in the case of Asia regional IGF (which I did attend under protest, clearly informing the organisers that I will attend only if I am allowed to make the point regarding how i consider the whole process of organsing the Asia IGF problematic, which I then did speak about at the meeting). As much as I know about the Latin American process, I very much welcome regional IGFs getting more prominence if they are held on that LA model. And if so held, they indeed both greatly increase participation, and give much better time and space for a more reasoned consideration of issues key to the particular region. Before, or at least at the same time as, we recommend a more formal role for outcomes of regional IGFs in the global IGF, we need to mention the minimum basic conditions for what can be considered a regional IGF meeting for this purpose. For instance, the nature of its organizing committee, complete transparency of funding mechanisms, availability of support for CS groups to attend, the process of managing and allocating this funding support, clarity on mechanism by which the agenda issues and/ or 'messages' from these meetings are brought to the IGF etc............ These things need to be written in our response before we recommend that these meetings me given higher legitimacy in IGF agenda framing. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Oct 11 03:24:04 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:54:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] TENTATIVE FINAL draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <4FCE6895-ACD0-4B05-A37F-C3C02CF8989B@ciroap.org> References: <4FCE6895-ACD0-4B05-A37F-C3C02CF8989B@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4CB2BB94.3010903@itforchange.net> On Monday 11 October 2010 11:45 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for > participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously > (ie. through comments and discussions that are contributed over an > extended period through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so > on). We need not recommend specific proprietary applications in our response - just say various social networking possibilities or something like that..... 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Mon Oct 11 05:06:07 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 11:06:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Web 3.0 Message-ID: <5FCF36EF-8827-4954-8DF8-920D017B704D@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Still more stuff to worry about, this time from the realm of "self-governance." Would be interesting to hear from anyone involved in the W3C process... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/business/media/11privacy.html?_r=1&hp Bill *********************************************************** 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 www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Oct 11 05:10:27 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:10:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF In-Reply-To: <3A941447-3CCE-4A22-824D-A694DDAD8B5F@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <3A941447-3CCE-4A22-824D-A694DDAD8B5F@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Hello everyone, This situation was predictable after Tunis since 2005. the Geneva Plan of Action and the Tunis Agenda is the result of all actors: governments, private sector, civil society, UN agencies, international organizations, regional and sub regional ... The ITU draws on totalitarian countries to avert civil society. What a glimpse we are pushed to either ignore or to disregard the Geneva Declaration of 2003 and the Tunis Commitment 2005. We, civil society must react and move up a gear. Russia, China and most African countries do not have a democratic culture and the concept of "multistakeholderism" is grain of sand in the gears of their system of corruption and poor governance. It is imperative to react and move up a gear. 7 years of hard fighting, friends and colleagues are dead. I believe we must honor their memory. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) ACADEMIE DES TIC *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571 +243811980914 email: b.schombe at gmail.com blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2010/10/9 William Drake > Hi, > > This is related to the message I just sent concerning the ITU/GAC proposal, > but it merits a different thread. The list discussion has all been building > off the Kevin Murphy piece Wolfgang circulated. Alas, the article being > ICANN-oriented did not bother to take note of another part of the RCC > proposal that should be of some concern here. The Russian text includes a > section on The Future of the Internet Governance Forum that says, inter > alia, > > "The WSIS Forum 2010 was held in May 2010 in Geneva, and the venue for the > next one, in 2011, is the United Nations headquarters in New York. The > question of Internet governance is just one of the many questions raised by > WSIS, and it would appear logical that IGF should in future be held as part > of the WSIS Forum in order for there to be a common platform for all > stakeholders seeking to implement WSIS outcomes. This will serve to broaden > the audience, particularly within developing countries, and reduce costs for > organizers and participants alike. Proposal: To consider IGF as a part of > the WSIS Forum in the interests of combining efforts, facilitating > participation, especially for developing-country representatives, reducing > costs and avoiding duplication of effort." > > So voila. This isn't exactly news either, I had ITU staffers tell me in > Tunis when the IGF was endorsed that "we'll be running this thing in five > years." There's always been a contingent of governments, generally the > same ones supporting ITU uber ICANN, arguing that ITU should have the IGF; > indeed, the Russians said this in Tunis, and insisted on the inclusion in > the mandate of those provisions about ITU competence etc. And Toure et al > have in the past held up the WTPF, the WSIS Forum, etc as evidence that the > ITU does this sort of thing better. All of which harks back to our earlier > debate on the WSIS Forum and whether it would be a swell idea to hold it in > NYC where UN GA reps could see what a proper UN forum looks like, etc. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > *********************************************************** > 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 > www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake > *********************************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Mon Oct 11 05:08:06 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:08:06 +0800 Subject: [governance] TENTATIVE FINAL draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <4CB2BB20.6090502@itforchange.net> References: <4FCE6895-ACD0-4B05-A37F-C3C02CF8989B@ciroap.org> <4CB2BB20.6090502@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6872B1F7-CC60-4E16-8148-324568AFAE2E@ciroap.org> On 11/10/2010, at 3:22 PM, parminder wrote: > Before, or at least at the same time as, we recommend a more formal role for outcomes of regional IGFs in the global IGF, we need to mention the minimum basic conditions for what can be considered a regional IGF meeting for this purpose. For instance, the nature of its organizing committee, complete transparency of funding mechanisms, availability of support for CS groups to attend, the process of managing and allocating this funding support, clarity on mechanism by which the agenda issues and/ or 'messages' from these meetings are brought to the IGF etc............ These things need to be written in our response before we recommend that these meetings me given higher legitimacy in IGF agenda framing. "In our submission taking stock of the Sharm IGF meeting, the IGC expressed the view that dynamic coalitions or working groups seeking to have their outputs discussed at the IGF should meet 'stringent standards ... including open membership, democratic processes, and ... multi-stakeholder composition.' The criteria that apply to regional or local IGFs should be no less stringent. Additionally they should uphold a high level of transparency in their funding mechanisms, agenda-setting, and the process by which their contributions are received at the global IGF." Since this language is based on a previous consensus submission, but applies equally well to regional IGFs, I hope we should be able to quickly agree on it. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Oct 11 05:47:01 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Schombe Baudouin) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 02:47:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] RE: NomCom for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: 518E1BD30D4444A0B0175500E9761E45@IAN Message-ID: Hello Would you accept my apology because since my return from Vilinius, we experienced technical problems are being resolved gradually. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Mon Oct 11 09:14:50 2010 From: pouzin at well.com (Pouzin (well)) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:14:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Introduction In-Reply-To: References: <22175821.54751286338506910.JavaMail.68-168-96-64$@68-168-96-64> <469D55E0A215504CAE38D09D178E5F3D2EC2697727@MAILBOX.tfl.internal> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07243@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi Walid, Congrats for your work on freedom of expression, and welcome to this list. Google turns up links to you and also to a person who seems to be a namesake: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/jul/30/trustedplaces http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/walid-al-saqqaf/0/96/a5b Info available on https://alkasir.com/doc/en/ is very clear, and should be most valuable for people living in censored countries. Best regards - - - On 10/6/10, Walid Al-Saqaf wrote: > Dear Fouad, Shahzad, Rafik and friends, > > I've just subscribed to the IGC list and am quite delighted to get this warm > welcome. I do hope to get to communicate with and learn from IGC's members. > > I was privileged to have met and learned lots of interesting things from > Wolfgang about Internet policy challenges and have since become more > interested in tackling issues that deal with the legal and practical > dimensions of cyber censorship. > > Hope to get in touch with you more often and wish you all the very best. > > Sincerely, > > Walid > > ----------------- > > Walid Al-Saqaf > alkasir.com > Founder and Administrator ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Oct 11 10:26:34 2010 From: pbekono at gmail.com (Pascal Bekono) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:26:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07262@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4CB215A9.6020908@apc.org> Message-ID: Congratulations Izumi ! Marilia, Rafik, Thanks for representing youth voices Cheers, Pascal 2010/10/11 Siranush Vardanyan > > Dear Izumi, > > Congratulations for becoming the IGC coordinator. I am sure you will > be very good in this position as usually you are. > > Congrats also to Marilia and Rafik for having so many votes, which means > that youth voices should be for sure included in the main area of IG focus. > > Best > > Siranush > > Siranush Vardanyan > Armenia > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Mon Oct 11 10:53:25 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:23:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07262@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4CB215A9.6020908@apc.org> Message-ID: Congratulations to Rafik, Marilia and Izumi on their participation. Good Wishes to Izumi for a purposeful term as Coordinator. Sivasubramanian M http://www.isocmadras.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Pascal Bekono wrote: > Congratulations Izumi ! > > Marilia, Rafik, Thanks for representing youth voices > > Cheers, > > Pascal > > 2010/10/11 Siranush Vardanyan > >> >> Dear Izumi, >> >> Congratulations for becoming the IGC coordinator. I am sure you will >> be very good in this position as usually you are. >> >> Congrats also to Marilia and Rafik for having so many votes, which means >> that youth voices should be for sure included in the main area of IG focus. >> >> Best >> >> Siranush >> >> Siranush Vardanyan >> Armenia >> >> >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shahzad at bytesforall.net Mon Oct 11 11:50:31 2010 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:50:31 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006601cb695c$0eafefb0$2c0fcf10$@net> Congratulation Izumi, Heartfelt thanks to other candidates, who agreed to be nominated for this very difficult position. Best wishes and regards Shahzad From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2010 9:20 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results I am pleased to announce the results of the 2010 IGF coordinator elections. All candidates polled respectably, indicating that they were all well-qualified nominees for the post. However, we have a clear winner. Congratulations and welcome to my new colleague, Izumi Aizu. There were 107 attempts to vote, of which 103 were valid responses. The invalid responses were two respondents who commenced the survey but did not answer compulsory questions (one "Are you a member of the IGC" and the other, having answered that "Yes", not answering "Have you already voted"), another respondent who abandoned the survey before voting for a coordinator and tried again later successfully, and one who attempted to vote for coordinator twice. Of the 103 valid responses, 101 were from self-identified IGC members, 95 of whom claimed not to have voted already. Four of these remaining qualified voters did not choose to vote for a coordinator. Of the remaining 91 votes cast, Izumi received 52. Thanks also to Rafik who received 13 votes and Marilia who received 26. The public statistics for the poll, and a spreadsheet with the results of the election are both available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/38. A photo of the new coordinators is available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/17. I will write separately about the charter vote and the nominations committee. Here are some questions you may have about the results (though I can't really call them "frequently asked"): Q: Why do the public statistics show 100 (not 103) responses? A: Because by design of the software, these statistics exclude "incomplete" responses. Of the four respondents who did not choose a coordinator, one just skipped that question, whereas the others quit the survey in progress. The former's response is included in the public statistics, and the others are not. Q. Why do the public statistics show 98 (not 101) voters asserting membership of the IGC? A. See the answer to the previous question. Q: Why do the public statistics show 92 (not 95) persons claiming not to have already voted? A: See the answer to the previous question. Q. Why do there appear to be some votes missing from the CSV file (based on the consecutive numbering)? A. The missing ones at the beginning where from testing by me and Ginger. There are a small number of missing votes where I deleted them because the person mistakenly claimed to have voted already (see below). Q. Why do three people appear to have voted twice? A. One of these people mistakenly answered that he had voted already. I told him to vote again using the token sent to his other email address. Another gave up before getting to the coordinator vote, then started again; her first response was treated as invalid. The third does appear to be a double vote; in this case, the first response has been treated as invalid and the second, more complete response taken as definitive. It is not counted in the public statistics, but is retained in the spreadsheet of results. Q. Why did some people say that they had already voted, when they hadn't? A. I don't know, maybe they didn't read the question carefully enough? Anyone who contacted me to ask for the opportunity to re-cast their vote, was able to do so. A few, unfortunately, didn't contact me, and missed out on the opportunity to vote... Q. How did one person vote anonymously? A. It was not really anonymous, they just didn't provide their name. Their email address is news [at] chania.di.uoa.gr. Anyway, theirs was one of the invalid responses that was not counted, as they did not answer a compulsory question. Q. What is the difference between "No", "None" and "N/A"? A. "No" means you were asked a Yes/No question and chose the latter. "None", for the coordinator vote, means you were qualified to vote and chose to support none of the candidates. "N/A" means either you were not qualified to vote, or you didn't answer that question. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 11 12:12:54 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:42:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results In-Reply-To: <006601cb695c$0eafefb0$2c0fcf10$@net> References: <006601cb695c$0eafefb0$2c0fcf10$@net> Message-ID: <4CB33786.7000303@itforchange.net> Congrats to Izumi. And thanks to Rafik and Marilia for volunteering to participate in this democratic exercise. Shahzad, It is not such a 'very difficult position', though I think there is a feeling been built that it is and that has prevented some people from contesting for it. If one is interested in the political route to social change (and I think that is one of the, if not the, most important route to real structural change) , this is about the easiest training one can get for it :) Parminder On Monday 11 October 2010 09:20 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > > Congratulation Izumi, > > Heartfelt thanks to other candidates, who agreed to be nominated for > this very difficult position. > > Best wishes and regards > > Shahzad > > *From:* Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] > *Sent:* Sunday, October 10, 2010 9:20 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* [governance] IGC coordinator election results > > I am pleased to announce the results of the 2010 IGF coordinator > elections. All candidates polled respectably, indicating that they > were all well-qualified nominees for the post. However, we have a > clear winner. Congratulations and welcome to my new colleague, Izumi > Aizu. > > There were 107 attempts to vote, of which 103 were valid responses. > The invalid responses were two respondents who commenced the survey > but did not answer compulsory questions (one "Are you a member of the > IGC" and the other, having answered that "Yes", not answering "Have > you already voted"), another respondent who abandoned the survey > before voting for a coordinator and tried again later successfully, > and one who attempted to vote for coordinator twice. > > Of the 103 valid responses, 101 were from self-identified IGC members, > 95 of whom claimed not to have voted already. Four of these remaining > qualified voters did not choose to vote for a coordinator. Of the > remaining 91 votes cast, Izumi received 52. Thanks also to Rafik who > received 13 votes and Marilia who received 26. > > The public statistics for the poll, and a spreadsheet with the results > of the election are both available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/38. > A photo of the new coordinators is available at > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/17. > > I will write separately about the charter vote and the nominations > committee. > > Here are some questions you may have about the results (though I can't > really call them "frequently asked"): > > Q: Why do the public statistics show 100 (not 103) responses? > > A: Because by design of the software, these statistics exclude > "incomplete" responses. Of the four respondents who did not choose a > coordinator, one just skipped that question, whereas the others quit > the survey in progress. The former's response is included in the > public statistics, and the others are not. > > Q. Why do the public statistics show 98 (not 101) voters asserting > membership of the IGC? > > A. See the answer to the previous question. > > Q: Why do the public statistics show 92 (not 95) persons claiming not > to have already voted? > > A: See the answer to the previous question. > > Q. Why do there appear to be some votes missing from the CSV file > (based on the consecutive numbering)? > > A. The missing ones at the beginning where from testing by me and > Ginger. There are a small number of missing votes where I deleted > them because the person mistakenly claimed to have voted already (see > below). > > Q. Why do three people appear to have voted twice? > > A. One of these people mistakenly answered that he had voted already. > I told him to vote again using the token sent to his other email > address. Another gave up before getting to the coordinator vote, then > started again; her first response was treated as invalid. The third > does appear to be a double vote; in this case, the first response has > been treated as invalid and the second, more complete response taken > as definitive. It is not counted in the public statistics, but is > retained in the spreadsheet of results. > > Q. Why did some people say that they had already voted, when they hadn't? > > A. I don't know, maybe they didn't read the question carefully enough? > Anyone who contacted me to ask for the opportunity to re-cast their > vote, was able to do so. A few, unfortunately, didn't contact me, and > missed out on the opportunity to vote... > > Q. How did one person vote anonymously? > > A. It was not really anonymous, they just didn't provide their name. > Their email address is news [at] chania.di.uoa.gr > . Anyway, theirs was one of the invalid > responses that was not counted, as they did not answer a compulsory > question. > > Q. What is the difference between "No", "None" and "N/A"? > > A. "No" means you were asked a Yes/No question and chose the latter. > "None", for the coordinator vote, means you were qualified to vote > and chose to support none of the candidates. "N/A" means either you > were not qualified to vote, or you didn't answer that question. > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *CI is 50* > > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement > in 2010. > > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect > consumer rights around the world. > _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_ > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . > Don't print this email unless necessary. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 11 13:05:23 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:35:23 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results In-Reply-To: <4CB33786.7000303@itforchange.net> References: <006601cb695c$0eafefb0$2c0fcf10$@net> <4CB33786.7000303@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4CB343D3.3070806@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 shahzad at bytesforall.net Mon Oct 11 14:29:14 2010 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:29:14 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results In-Reply-To: <4CB343D3.3070806@paque.net> References: <006601cb695c$0eafefb0$2c0fcf10$@net> <4CB33786.7000303@itforchange.net> <4CB343D3.3070806@paque.net> Message-ID: <007801cb6972$3eb15b70$bc141250$@net> Parminder/Ginger, Hmmmm okaaay if you two say so ;) However, am sure, IGC will continue to get great leaders from within the community J Best wishes Shahzad From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 10:05 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] IGC coordinator election results Parminder: Shahzad, It is not such a 'very difficult position', though I think there is a feeling been built that it is and that has prevented some people from contesting for it. Shazad and all, I would like to reinforce Parminder's point here. Two years ago, I was very reluctant to run for co-coordinator. Parminder and Ian assured me that it was a 'doable' task and were very supportive when I asked for more information. I found that the overlapping/laddered 2-year term allows an excellent 'breaking in' period, and that the IGC members are far more flexible and supportive than we have the image of being. I thought that as IGC co-coordinator I would be 'giving'... instead I found that I learned and received far more than I gave, and that the position was a valuable opportunity more than a difficult task. When I thanked everyone on the list at the end of my term, I was not being politically correct. I indeed found it to be an enriching and valuable experience. Shahzad, I think you were being appreciative of IGC co-coordinators in general, but it is good clarify this point, and to encourage more people who, as Parminder notes, may be discouraged from running because of this perception. Best wishes to all, Ginger On 10/11/2010 11:42 AM, parminder wrote: Congrats to Izumi. And thanks to Rafik and Marilia for volunteering to participate in this democratic exercise. Shahzad, It is not such a 'very difficult position', though I think there is a feeling been built that it is and that has prevented some people from contesting for it. If one is interested in the political route to social change (and I think that is one of the, if not the, most important route to real structural change) , this is about the easiest training one can get for it :) Parminder On Monday 11 October 2010 09:20 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: Congratulation Izumi, Heartfelt thanks to other candidates, who agreed to be nominated for this very difficult position. Best wishes and regards Shahzad From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2010 9:20 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results I am pleased to announce the results of the 2010 IGF coordinator elections. All candidates polled respectably, indicating that they were all well-qualified nominees for the post. However, we have a clear winner. Congratulations and welcome to my new colleague, Izumi Aizu. There were 107 attempts to vote, of which 103 were valid responses. The invalid responses were two respondents who commenced the survey but did not answer compulsory questions (one "Are you a member of the IGC" and the other, having answered that "Yes", not answering "Have you already voted"), another respondent who abandoned the survey before voting for a coordinator and tried again later successfully, and one who attempted to vote for coordinator twice. Of the 103 valid responses, 101 were from self-identified IGC members, 95 of whom claimed not to have voted already. Four of these remaining qualified voters did not choose to vote for a coordinator. Of the remaining 91 votes cast, Izumi received 52. Thanks also to Rafik who received 13 votes and Marilia who received 26. The public statistics for the poll, and a spreadsheet with the results of the election are both available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/38. A photo of the new coordinators is available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/17. I will write separately about the charter vote and the nominations committee. Here are some questions you may have about the results (though I can't really call them "frequently asked"): Q: Why do the public statistics show 100 (not 103) responses? A: Because by design of the software, these statistics exclude "incomplete" responses. Of the four respondents who did not choose a coordinator, one just skipped that question, whereas the others quit the survey in progress. The former's response is included in the public statistics, and the others are not. Q. Why do the public statistics show 98 (not 101) voters asserting membership of the IGC? A. See the answer to the previous question. Q: Why do the public statistics show 92 (not 95) persons claiming not to have already voted? A: See the answer to the previous question. Q. Why do there appear to be some votes missing from the CSV file (based on the consecutive numbering)? A. The missing ones at the beginning where from testing by me and Ginger. There are a small number of missing votes where I deleted them because the person mistakenly claimed to have voted already (see below). Q. Why do three people appear to have voted twice? A. One of these people mistakenly answered that he had voted already. I told him to vote again using the token sent to his other email address. Another gave up before getting to the coordinator vote, then started again; her first response was treated as invalid. The third does appear to be a double vote; in this case, the first response has been treated as invalid and the second, more complete response taken as definitive. It is not counted in the public statistics, but is retained in the spreadsheet of results. Q. Why did some people say that they had already voted, when they hadn't? A. I don't know, maybe they didn't read the question carefully enough? Anyone who contacted me to ask for the opportunity to re-cast their vote, was able to do so. A few, unfortunately, didn't contact me, and missed out on the opportunity to vote... Q. How did one person vote anonymously? A. It was not really anonymous, they just didn't provide their name. Their email address is news [at] chania.di.uoa.gr. Anyway, theirs was one of the invalid responses that was not counted, as they did not answer a compulsory question. Q. What is the difference between "No", "None" and "N/A"? A. "No" means you were asked a Yes/No question and chose the latter. "None", for the coordinator vote, means you were qualified to vote and chose to support none of the candidates. "N/A" means either you were not qualified to vote, or you didn't answer that question. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -- Ginger (Virginia) Paque IGCBP Online Coordinator DiploFoundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig The latest from Diplo... http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From admin at alkasir.com Mon Oct 11 16:51:13 2010 From: admin at alkasir.com (Walid Al-Saqaf) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:51:13 -0700 Subject: [governance] Introduction In-Reply-To: References: <22175821.54751286338506910.JavaMail.68-168-96-64$@68-168-96-64> <469D55E0A215504CAE38D09D178E5F3D2EC2697727@MAILBOX.tfl.internal> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07243@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Thanks Pouzin, I'm emailing you from Stanford University where I'll be speaking tomorrow about alkasir. Thanks for taking the time in Googling about me and finding the namesake. I also noticed that. I guess being entrepreneurs is in Saqaf's family :) BTW, the correct link to the alkasir documentation is : https://alkasir.com/help All the best Sincerely, Walid ----------------- Walid Al-Saqaf, M.A. Örebro University email: walid.al-saqaf at oru.se On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 6:14 AM, Pouzin (well) wrote: > Hi Walid, > > Congrats for your work on freedom of expression, and welcome to this list. > > Google turns up links to you and also to a person who seems to be a > namesake: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/jul/30/trustedplaces > http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/walid-al-saqqaf/0/96/a5b > > Info available on https://alkasir.com/doc/en/ is very clear, and > should be most valuable for people living in censored countries. > > Best regards > - - - > > On 10/6/10, Walid Al-Saqaf wrote: > > Dear Fouad, Shahzad, Rafik and friends, > > > > I've just subscribed to the IGC list and am quite delighted to get this > warm > > welcome. I do hope to get to communicate with and learn from IGC's > members. > > > > I was privileged to have met and learned lots of interesting things from > > Wolfgang about Internet policy challenges and have since become more > > interested in tackling issues that deal with the legal and practical > > dimensions of cyber censorship. > > > > Hope to get in touch with you more often and wish you all the very best. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Walid > > > > ----------------- > > > > Walid Al-Saqaf > > alkasir.com > > Founder and Administrator > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Oct 12 10:45:10 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:45:10 +0300 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: 2010/10/8 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" : > "US and Russia face off over ICANN veto power Now apparently the Syrians have weighed in on this one: http://gibc.biz/2010/10/us-government-misplaced-concerns/ "What’s on the table? A common proposals document put forward by the Arab States, for example, contains one proposal – by the representative of Syria – that argues “the current domain name system does not fully reflect the diverse and growing language needs of all users because the supervisory entity, ICANN, an American corporation, is subject under its agreement with the United States government, represented by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), to the laws and jurisdiction of the United States of America”. It calls for the government body within ICANN (the Governmental Advisory Committee, or GAC) to be given oversight powers of ICANN, “such that the latter becomes subject to GAC decisions”. And it suggests that GAC is reformed along the same lines as the ITU Council." -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Oct 12 11:37:05 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:37:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Like I've been telling you, watch out for the GAC. > -----Original Message----- > > It calls for the government body within ICANN (the Governmental > Advisory Committee, or GAC) to be given oversight powers of ICANN, > "such that the latter becomes subject to GAC decisions". And it > suggests that GAC is reformed along the same lines as the ITU > Council." > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Oct 12 11:41:47 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:41:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] TENTATIVE FINAL draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <4FCE6895-ACD0-4B05-A37F-C3C02CF8989B@ciroap.org> References: <4FCE6895-ACD0-4B05-A37F-C3C02CF8989B@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA518@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Jeremy: This looks quite good to me; it is a substantive statement that reflects what I believe to be widely held views in this caucus. You responded to Parminder's comments about regional IGFs by adding some statements about criteria for recognition, which was taken from earlier statements we made about Dynamic Coalitions. While I don't oppose either of those statements, I would offer another option: simply replace "should" play a more important role with "could" play a more important role and ask that this option be explored in future discussions. I propose this because I am not sure I understand the full implications of such a move, and I think it is a major procedural amendment that may require more thought and discussion. --MM From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 2:16 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] TENTATIVE FINAL draft response to MAG questionnaire I don't want to rush anybody, but since I will be travelling a lot in the next few weeks it would be ideal if we could finalise our response to the MAG questionnaire soon (in any case, it must be presented by 24 October). To this end, I'm posting this as a tentatively final draft, which I think captures the points made to date. >From now on, please try to limit your comments to precisely worded (and preferably minor) amendments. Depending on how things go, I would then like to put this to a consensus call at the end of the week, and we can move on to the next statement on Enhanced Cooperation and the ITU vs IGF/ICANN. As before, the latest amendments in this draft will show underlined or struck out if you have a suitable email client or can consult the Web archives at http://lists.cpsr.org/. 1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions? The IGC broadly supports the continuation of a balanced multistakeholder advisory group. In its current role, the MAG has performed reasonably. However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads where it may be called upon to produce more tangible outputs. The qualification of the MAG to steer the IGF through this challenging phase of its evolution is less clear. We would like the MAG to play an active role in any possible improvements towards a greater outcome orientation that may be suggested by the ongoing IGF improvement process. Since there is no other clear body or structure in and of the IGF, any possible suggestions for improvements like inter-sessional work, choosing of key issues for more focussed work, working groups on issues, background papers etc will require the MAG to play an important part. To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, the IGF may require more direct lines of accountability to its constituencies, more balanced sectoral representation, and proactive leadership. Reducing the size of the MAG might also improve its effectiveness. It is also very important that the established process by which one-third of the MAG members are rotated each year is executed methodically, so that the composition of the MAG is completely refreshed every three years. Moreover, MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for multistakeholder comment and participation, in a variety of other institutions, processes and fora, both online and offline. Opening up meetings of the MAG to observers, either face to face or remotely, could also assist in making it more accessible and responsive to the broader community. Finally we ask that when the MAG prepares the IGF's agenda, it should prioritise issues which directly concern the interests of marginalized groups, as they and those working with them (rather than just technical experts) see these issues. This in turn requires that these marginalised groups should be better represented on the MAG. 2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG? As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary for it to become more accountable. Part of this process may involve moving on from the existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary General selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by various parties, pursuant to selection criteria that are not published. An alternative approach that many from civil societythe IGC support is the selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process driven by the stakeholder groups, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints . Although civil societymembers of the IGC broadly agree on this general principle, various different models for implementing are being debated. These include the reestablishment of a civil society umbrella group such as the WSIS civil society plenary, the use of an independent nominating committee, or the assignment of a role to the Internet Governance Caucus itself, whose existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes provide a good model for a broader nominating group. Whatever the precise method used, diverse participation from civil society in the nomination of its representatives must be ensured. Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special privileges that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, and special advisors to the chair, currently possess. If the MAG's processes are opened to broader oversight by the community, such special privileges would soon become redundant. 3. How best to nominate the MAG Chair? At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN Secretary-General. This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG develops into a body whose members are self-selected by the stakeholders. In that case, it could be that the MAG should select its own chair or chairs, and for that position to rotate between the stakeholder groups. In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the role of the Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder agenda, but to facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de facto multi-stakeholder bureau for the IGF that is responsible for facilitating the fulfilment of the mandate in the Tunis Agenda. 4. How best to organize open consultations? There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as meetings held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation from around the world, but as meetings that are held online, with provision for some participants to attend in person at a hub in Geneva, or at other hubs. Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves could come to be considered in the same terms. Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously (ie. through comments and discussions that are contributed over an extended period through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on). It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise an electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF participants as means of contributing to open consultations. In particular, MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity to online discussions outside of their closed mailing list, which limits the profile and accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a whole. 5. How best to link with regional meetings? The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance to a much broader community of Internet users and citizens, but at the same time we must be careful to ensure that these meetings meet the same basic process criteria as the IGF itself, including adequate participation by civil society at all levels . In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to governance processes than governmental and private sector groups, due to funding constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour. This may require that additional efforts be made (and funded where appropriate) to ensure that a plurality of civil society voices are heard in Internet governance processes. It is important that regional meetings play a more important role in IGF agenda-setting and issue-framing. The discussions that take place during the meetings, if summarized in an objectively and timely manner, could represent real regional contributions to the process. The outcomes of regional meetings should also serve to better clarify and sharpen discussions, reducing the complexity of themes into concrete issues to be addressed at the IGF. 6. How best to link with international processes and institutions? Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to bridge between online and offline discussions, so too there could be rapporteurs whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at the IGF and to forward them to external institutions, and to act as a proactive conduit for feedback from those institutions. Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and workshops, since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in the latter. Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions provided that a better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops back into main sessions is realised. A emerging model for this process (though other possible models may also be explored) is found in the "messages" or "recommendations" produced by national IGFs such IGF-D (Deutschland), and regional IGFs such as the East African IGF and EURODIG. Ideally this would become a two-way process in which the institutions addressed could also turn to the IGF with issues they wished the IGF to address through multi-stakeholder dialogue. -- 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 avri at psg.com Tue Oct 12 11:45:17 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:45:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> Hi, and one way to deal with part of that is to insist that a civil society oriented advisory committee, i.e. the ALAC, have exactly the same rights, at the bylaw level, within ICANN as the GAC. a. On 12 Oct 2010, at 11:37, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Like I've been telling you, watch out for the GAC. > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> It calls for the government body within ICANN (the Governmental >> Advisory Committee, or GAC) to be given oversight powers of ICANN, >> "such that the latter becomes subject to GAC decisions". And it >> suggests that GAC is reformed along the same lines as the ITU >> Council." >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Oct 12 12:49:12 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:49:12 -0300 Subject: [governance] TENTATIVE FINAL draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA518@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4FCE6895-ACD0-4B05-A37F-C3C02CF8989B@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA518@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I understand Parminder´s concern and agree with him on setting some general standards that would make a regional meeting representative enough to send contributions to the IGF. I agree with Jeremy´s suggestion. It helps to clarify our proposal and sets widely recognized and accepted standards. I just wanted to point out that, in my view, we have a vicious cycle taking place nowadays and we need to brake it. On the one hand, there is lack of participation in regional meetings *exactly because* people do not see concrete impact of their outcomes in the global IG process. They are disconnected from the IGF. On the other hand, people in the IG community refrain from giving these meetings more space and influence because they lack participation… One possible way out of this situation, in my opinion, is to value these meetings and to make their outcomes more meaningful (if they take into account basic standards of openness and participation). This would create incentives to more involvement. Best, Marília On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Jeremy: > > This looks quite good to me; it is a substantive statement that reflects > what I believe to be widely held views in this caucus. > > You responded to Parminder’s comments about regional IGFs by adding some > statements about criteria for recognition, which was taken from earlier > statements we made about Dynamic Coalitions. While I don’t oppose either of > those statements, I would offer another option: simply replace “should” play > a more important role with “could” play a more important role and ask that > this option be explored in future discussions. > > I propose this because I am not sure I understand the full implications of > such a move, and I think it is a major procedural amendment that may require > more thought and discussion. > > > > --MM > > > > *From:* Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] > *Sent:* Monday, October 11, 2010 2:16 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* [governance] TENTATIVE FINAL draft response to MAG > questionnaire > > > > I don't want to rush anybody, but since I will be travelling a lot in the > next few weeks it would be ideal if we could finalise our response to the > MAG questionnaire soon (in any case, it must be presented by 24 October). > To this end, I'm posting this as a tentatively final draft, which I think > captures the points made to date. > > > > From now on, please try to limit your comments to precisely worded (and > preferably minor) amendments. Depending on how things go, I would then like > to put this to a consensus call at the end of the week, and we can move on > to the next statement on Enhanced Cooperation and the ITU vs IGF/ICANN. > > > > As before, the latest amendments in this draft will show underlined or > struck out if you have a suitable email client or can consult the Web > archives at http://lists.cpsr.org/. > > > > *1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in > the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions?* > > > > The IGC broadly supports the continuation of a balanced multistakeholder > advisory group. In its current role, the MAG has performed reasonably. > However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads where it may be called upon to > produce more tangible outputs. The qualification of the MAG to steer the > IGF through this challenging phase of its evolution is less clear. > > > > We would like the MAG to play an active role in any possible improvements > towards a greater outcome orientation that may be suggested by the > ongoing IGF improvement process. Since there is no other clear body or > structure in and of the IGF, any possible suggestions for improvements like > inter-sessional work, choosing of key issues for more focussed work, working > groups on issues, background papers etc will require the MAG to play an > important part. > > > > To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, the IGF may > require more direct lines of accountability to its constituencies, more > balanced sectoral representation, and proactive leadership. Reducing the > size of the MAG might also improve its effectiveness. > > > > *It is also very important that the established process by which one-third > of the MAG members are rotated each year is executed methodically, so that > the composition of the MAG is completely refreshed every three years.* > > > > Moreover, MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for > multistakeholder comment and participation, in a variety of other > institutions, processes and fora, both online and offline. Opening up > meetings of the MAG to observers, either face to face or remotely, could > also assist in making it more accessible and responsive to the broader > community. > > > > Finally we ask that when the MAG prepares the IGF's agenda, it should > prioritise issues which directly concern the interests of marginalized > groups, as they and those working with them (rather than just technical > experts) see these issues. This in turn requires that these marginalised > groups should be better represented on the MAG. > > > > *2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG?* > > > > As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary for it > to become more accountable. Part of this process may involve moving on from > the ** > > existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary General > selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by various parties, > pursuant to selection criteria that are not published. > > > > An alternative approach that many from civil society*the IGC* ** > > support > > is the selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process driven > by the stakeholder groups, > > subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a > diversity of viewpoints > > . > > > > Although civil society*members of the IGC* broadly agree on this general > principle, various different models for implementing are being debated. > These include > > the reestablishment of a civil society umbrella group such as the WSIS > civil society plenary, the use of an independent nominating committee, or > the assignment of a role to > > the Internet Governance Caucus itself, whose existing open, accountable, > transparent and democratic processes provide a good model for a broader > nominating group. *Whatever the precise method used, diverse > participation from civil society in the nomination of its representatives > must be ensured.* > > > > Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special > privileges that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, and > special advisors to the chair, currently possess. If the MAG's processes > are opened to broader oversight by the community, such special privileges > would soon become redundant. > > > > *3. How best to nominate the MAG Chair?* > > > > At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN > Secretary-General. This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG develops > into a body whose members are self-selected by the stakeholders. In that > case, it could be that the MAG should select its own chair or chairs, and > for that position to rotate between the stakeholder groups. > > > > In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the role of the > Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder agenda, but to > facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de facto multi-stakeholder > bureau for the IGF that is responsible for facilitating the fulfilment of > the mandate in the Tunis Agenda. > > > > *4. How best to organize open consultations?* > > > > There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as meetings > held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation from around the > world, but as meetings that are held online, with provision for some > participants to attend in person at a hub in Geneva, or at other hubs. > Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves could come to be considered in the same > terms. > > > > Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation > both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously (ie. through > comments and discussions that are contributed over an extended period > through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on). > > > > It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise an > electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of > asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF > participants as means of contributing to open consultations. In particular, > MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity to online discussions > outside of their closed mailing list, which limits the profile and > accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a whole. > > > > *5. How best to link with regional meetings?* > > > > The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the multi-stakeholder > model of Internet governance to a much broader community of Internet users > and citizens, but at the same time we must be careful to ensure that these > meetings meet the same basic process criteria as the IGF itself, including > adequate participation by ** > > civil society at all levels > > .** > > * * > > In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to > governance processes than governmental and private sector groups, due to > funding constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour. This may require > that additional efforts be made (and funded where appropriate) to ensure > that a plurality of civil society voices are heard in Internet governance > processes.** > > * * > > *It is important that regional meetings play a more important role in IGF > agenda-setting and issue-framing. The discussions that take place during the > meetings, if summarized in an objectively and timely manner, could represent > real regional contributions to the process.* > > * The outcomes of regional meetings should also serve to better clarify > and sharpen discussions, reducing the complexity of themes into concrete > issues to be addressed at the IGF.* > > > > *6. How best to link with international processes and institutions?* > > > > Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to bridge > between online and offline discussions, so too there could be rapporteurs > whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at the IGF and to > forward them to external institutions, and to act as a *proactive* conduit > for feedback from those institutions.** > > > > Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and workshops, > since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in the latter. > Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions provided that a > better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops back into main sessions > is realised. > > > > A emerging model for this process (though other possible models may also be > explored) is found in the "messages" or "recommendations" produced by > national IGFs such IGF-D (Deutschland), and regional IGFs such as the East > African IGF and EURODIG. Ideally this would become a two-way process in > which the institutions addressed could also turn to the IGF with issues they > wished the IGF to address through multi-stakeholder dialogue. > > -- > > *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 > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Oct 12 13:05:30 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:05:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Setting aside the merits or demerits of Avri's proposal regarding ALAC, my point - which should have been further elaborated - is this: When the governments who have been demanding an ITU takeover of ICANN become clever enough to seek to take over ICANN from within, via the GAC, watch out. > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 11:45 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN > > Hi, > > and one way to deal with part of that is to insist that a civil society > oriented advisory committee, i.e. the ALAC, have exactly the same > rights, at the bylaw level, within ICANN as the GAC. > > a. > > On 12 Oct 2010, at 11:37, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > Like I've been telling you, watch out for the GAC. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> > >> It calls for the government body within ICANN (the Governmental > >> Advisory Committee, or GAC) to be given oversight powers of ICANN, > >> "such that the latter becomes subject to GAC decisions". And it > >> suggests that GAC is reformed along the same lines as the ITU > >> Council." > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Oct 12 13:50:56 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 20:50:56 +0300 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: MIlton, On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Setting aside the merits or demerits of Avri's proposal regarding ALAC, my point - which should have been further elaborated - is this: > > When the governments who have been demanding an ITU takeover of ICANN become clever enough to seek to take over ICANN from within, via the GAC, watch out. Can you explain to me how this takeover from within will happen? If you are really wary of this, then you should be a strong proponent of a CS body counterbalancing the weight of a GAC, no? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Oct 12 13:58:36 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 23:28:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear McTim, If a CS body is to counterbalance a Government body or a Business Body, the balance can only happen if the CS body is balanced within. Often this is not the case, we find that CS seats are visibly or invisibly filled in by Governments / Business. It would be a very good idea to balance the GAC with a balanced CS body. Sivasubramanian M On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:20 PM, McTim wrote: > MIlton, > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Setting aside the merits or demerits of Avri's proposal regarding ALAC, > my point - which should have been further elaborated - is this: > > > > When the governments who have been demanding an ITU takeover of ICANN > become clever enough to seek to take over ICANN from within, via the GAC, > watch out. > > Can you explain to me how this takeover from within will happen? > > If you are really wary of this, then you should be a strong proponent > of a CS body counterbalancing the weight of a GAC, no? > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Tue Oct 12 17:01:45 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:01:45 -0700 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> On 10/12/2010 10:50 AM, McTim wrote: > If you are really wary of this, then you should be a strong proponent > of a CS body counterbalancing the weight of a GAC, no? "counterbalancing"? That seems weak. Why not "dominating"? It seems to me that if one actually believes that governments are merely expressions of human sovereignty, that authority derives from the consent of the governed, then it would follow that in matters of internet governance that corporate and governmental voices should fall before the weight of the collective opinion of the community of people affected by the internet. Sure, this may be considered unobtainable fantasy by some, but if we don't aim at something worth having, they why should we even bother with the effort? --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Tue Oct 12 18:37:23 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:37:23 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07263@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <3A941447-3CCE-4A22-824D-A694DDAD8B5F@graduateinstitute.ch> <4CB0A4FC.9080704@gmx.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07263@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <010301cb6a5e$0f1d7550$2d585ff0$@uol.com.br> There is no doubt about the intentions in those debates in ITU. Not to have the government to decide is not acceptable for many states around the world. However, I see no reason to agree with them or even accept any of these " decisions" if they become decisions, which I really doubt since several countries have a better understanding of the evolution of the society, promoted by the internet itself, and recognizing their power as government is stronger if came from a model where all stakeholder has a voice. I like your examples... All the best. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464 -----Mensagem original----- De: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Enviada em: domingo, 10 de outubro de 2010 06:46 Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Klein; governance at lists.cpsr.org Assunto: AW: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF Hi Bill and others thanks for pointing to the IGF part of the Russian speech. Both together (the attack aginst ICANN & the IGF) look like an integrated strategy where the key idea is to bring the Internet under an intergovernmental mechanism and to kill the concept of "multistakeholderism". In the "Russian model" non-governmental stakeholders will be "invited" only under certain circumstances, which are defined and controlled by governments. This is the old hierarchical top down policy model. This is how the ITU works. This is how the ITU organized its "World Telecommunication Policy Forum" (WTPF). Here is my personal story from the WTPF 2009 in Lisbon. There was no free access to the WTPF. As an individual (or NGO) you had to write an application, explaining why you want to participate. This application was checked by an unknown third party. I applied and after a couple of days I got the permission for registration. The three day Forum was organized in a way that the whole first day was filled with official speeches by governmental delegations. There was no debate. There was a speaking order, reserved for governmental speakers only on Day 1. People like me with a NGO-badge had to find a chair in the back of the room. There was a clear seperation between the governmental and the non-governmental rows. On Day 2, when working sessions started, I wanted to make a comment to one of the speeches. But the Chair (my friend Abdullah from Saudi-Arabia who was also member of the WGIG) apologized with friendly words and explained to me that according to the rules of procedures I am not allowed to speak. Non-govenmental speakers could speak only if they are "invited" or of they are "private sector members of the ITU". As a private sector member you have to pay a membership fee of about 20.000.00 Swiss Francs annualy. I said that as an indivdual I can not afford to pay such a price for a three minute statement. He proposed that I should write down my intervention and promised that this will be published on the open part of the ITU website (you know that 80 per cent of ITU documents are not available to the public). Another example was the preparatory meeting for the WSIS 2010 Forum, which took place at the ITU Montbrillant building in Geneva in February 2010. The podium which explained the planned programme for the WSIS Forum was filled with representatives of intergovernmental organizations only. It was chaired by Houlin Zhao the now re-elected Deputy Secretary General of the ITU. When I asked him in the public debate about the principle of multistakeholderism and why no representatives of civil society and private sector are on the podium he replied, that UNESCO (which was on the podium) has hundreds of NGOs accredited and ITU has hundreds of private sector members. This is enough to meet the criteria of multistakeholderism. Wow! Lisbon April 2009 and Geneva February 2010 rememberd my at the painful discussions on the "Rules of Procedures" during PrepCom1 at WSIS in June 2002. There was a general impression that with WSIS I, WGIG, WSIS II and the IGF we moved forward towards a truly multistakeholder dialogue, inspired by the Internet Governance definition, as a guiding principle accepted even by the Heads of State. However obviously some governments do not (and/or will not) remember what they signed and secondly they have a special interpretation of the agreed texts. On the one hand one could argue that the Russian speech is just one point of view of one ITU member state. Personally I do not see that this position has a chance to get consensus by the whole Plenipotentiary Conference, where all governments have to agree. On the other hand the statement makes clear that the battle of 2005 is not over but has just restarted. One scenario could be that the ITU discussion is used by some governments to test out how far they can go in the UNGA discussion on continuation and improvement of the IGF. The "improvement" debate is for 2011 and the decision will be made by the UNGA in November 2011. With other words, a WSIS Forum in May 2011 in New York (is the site already decided?) and an IGF in September 2011 in Nairobi would compete against each other, evaluated then by the governments of the UN member states in November 2011. Another target of the Russian initiative could be to prepare the ground for a third WSIS in 2015. The deal in Guadalajara could be that the ITU gives up (for the moment) to becomne a RIR but would get a mandate to organize a 3rd WSIS. Under a WSIS umbrella governments would get another opportunity to work towards a model, where ICANN is pushed into an intergovenrmental framewok. If people are interested into the various ideas they should go back to "model 3" and "model 4" of the WGIG report from 2005. BTW, remember the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 1998 in Minneapolis, when ITU gave up (for the moment) its intention to get the hand over the DNS and IP addresses via the IAHC but got as a compensation the mandate to start the WSIS process. No new arguments, no new ideas. Old wine in new bottles. But 2010 is not 2005 and not 1998. We have one billion more Internet users and dozens of more problems (CC, IOT, SN etc.) which have only little to do with the DNS. They call for more multistakeholder dialog and bottom up PDP in an open and transparent environment and not for less. As it was said hundred times in 2005: The political challenges of the 21st century can not be settled with the diplomatic instruments of the 20th century. We have to be innovative and have to create something which is able to manage these challenges. ICANN and IGF is not the end of history. In contrary it is the beginning of a new historical phase. But we have to look and move forward, not backwards. What could be done? 1. IGC members, in particular from developing countries, should try to contact their national representatives participating in Guadalajara (and in the forthcoming UNGA discussion in the 2nd Committee) to explain them the background of the battle to enhanced their knowledge and understanding of the various dimensions of the issue 2. The IGC should work on a broader document on the future of Internet Governance with special parts on "improvement" of ICANN and the IGF. A first version could be presented at the forthcoming November IGF/MAG consultations in Geneva. Best wishes wolfgang Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Norbert Klein im Auftrag von Norbert Klein Gesendet: Sa 09.10.2010 19:23 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF On 10/09/2010 12:40 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Dear Bill, > > You are definitely pointing a major concern that should have IGC take > a strong position against as well as raise this issue in the upcoming > open consultation as well as the CSTD IGF improvements working group. > Do you deem it feasible that we use this thread to develop a position > statement from IGC to both the IGF and CSTD against the issue? > I really hope something like this will start. Norbert > > > On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:20 PM, William Drake > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> This is related to the message I just sent concerning the ITU/GAC >> proposal, but it merits a different thread. The list discussion has >> all been building off the Kevin Murphy piece Wolfgang circulated. >> Alas, the article being ICANN-oriented did not bother to take note of >> another part of the RCC proposal that should be of some concern here. >> The Russian text includes a section on The Future of the Internet >> Governance Forum that says, inter alia, >> >> "The WSIS Forum 2010 was held in May 2010 in Geneva, and the venue for the next one, in 2011, is the United Nations headquarters in New York. The question of Internet governance is just one of the many questions raised by WSIS, and it would appear logical that IGF should in future be held as part of the WSIS Forum in order for there to be a common platform for all stakeholders seeking to implement WSIS outcomes. This will serve to broaden the audience, particularly within developing countries, and reduce costs for organizers and participants alike. Proposal: To consider IGF as a part of the WSIS Forum in the interests of combining efforts, facilitating participation, especially for developing-country representatives, reducing costs and avoiding duplication of effort." >> >> So voila. This isn't exactly news either, I had ITU staffers tell me in Tunis when the IGF was endorsed that "we'll be running this thing in five years." There's always been a contingent of governments, generally the same ones supporting ITU uber ICANN, arguing that ITU should have the IGF; indeed, the Russians said this in Tunis, and insisted on the inclusion in the mandate of those provisions about ITU competence etc. And Toure et al have in the past held up the WTPF, the WSIS Forum, etc as evidence that the ITU does this sort of thing better. All of which harks back to our earlier debate on the WSIS Forum and whether it would be a swell idea to hold it in NYC where UN GA reps could see what a proper UN forum looks like, etc. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> *********************************************************** >> 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 >> www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake >> *********************************************************** >> -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English. This is the latest weekly editorial of The Mirror: The Influence of the Internet on Cambodia Sunday, 3.10.2010 http://tinyurl.com/32suhs5 (to read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new from time to time - at least every weekend: The NEW ADDRESS of The Mirror: http://www.cambodiamirror.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Tue Oct 12 18:59:28 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:59:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] TENTATIVE FINAL draft response to MAG questionnaire In-Reply-To: <4FCE6895-ACD0-4B05-A37F-C3C02CF8989B@ciroap.org> References: <4FCE6895-ACD0-4B05-A37F-C3C02CF8989B@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <26049.95014.qm@web55203.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Hi Jeremy I support the responses below. I made some changes under q 1and 2 and underlined them. Many thanks Shaila Rao Mistry challenge the rules ...push the barriers.... ............live beyond your existential means !! ________________________________ From: Jeremy Malcolm To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Sun, October 10, 2010 11:15:52 PM Subject: [governance] TENTATIVE FINAL draft response to MAG questionnaire I don't want to rush anybody, but since I will be travelling a lot in the next few weeks it would be ideal if we could finalise our response to the MAG questionnaire soon (in any case, it must be presented by 24 October). To this end, I'm posting this as a tentatively final draft, which I think captures the points made to date. >From now on, please try to limit your comments to precisely worded (and preferably minor) amendments. Depending on how things go, I would then like to put this to a consensus call at the end of the week, and we can move on to the next statement on Enhanced Cooperation and the ITU vs IGF/ICANN. As before, the latest amendments in this draft will show underlined or struck out if you have a suitable email client or can consult the Web archives at http://lists.cpsr.org/. 1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions? The IGC broadly supports the continuation of a balanced multistakeholder advisory group. In its current role, the MAG has performed reasonably. However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads where it may be called upon to produce more tangible outputs. The qualification of the MAG to steer the IGF through this challenging phase of its evolution is less clear. We would like the MAG to play an active role in any possible improvements towards a greater outcome orientation that may be suggested by the ongoing IGF improvement process. Since there is no other clear body or structure in and of the IGF, any possible suggestions for improvements like inter-sessional work, choosing of key issues for more focussed work, working groups on issues, background papers etc will require the MAG to play an important part. To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, the IGF may require more direct lines of accountability to its constituencies, more balanced sectoral representation, and proactive leadership. Reducing the size of the MAG might also improve its effectiveness. It is also very important that the established process by which one-third of the MAG members are rotated each year is executed methodically, so that the composition of the MAG is completely refreshed every three years. Moreover, MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for multistakeholder comment and participation, in a variety of other institutions, processes and fora, both online and offline. Opening up meetings of the MAG to observers, either face to face or remotely, could also assist in making it more accessible and responsive to the broader community. Finally we ask that when the MAG prepares the IGF's agenda, it should prioritise issues which directly concern the interests of marginalized groups, as they and those working with them (rather than just technical experts) see these issues. This in turn requires that these marginalised groups should be better represented and heard on the MAG. 2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG? As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary for it to become more accountable. Part of this process may involve moving on from the existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary General selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by various parties, pursuant to selection criteria that are not published. An alternative approach that many from civil societythe IGC support is the selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process driven by the stakeholder groups, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints. Although civil societymembers of the IGC broadly agree on this general principle, various different models for implementing are being debated. These include the reestablishment of a civil society umbrella group such as the WSIS civil society plenary, the use of an independent nominating committee, or the assignment of a role to the Internet Governance Caucus itself, whose existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes provide a good model for a broader nominating group. Whatever the precise method used, diverse participation from civil society in the nomination of its representatives must be ensured. Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special privileges that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, and special advisors to the chair, currently possess orextend similar privileges to civil society. If the MAG's processes are opened to broader oversight by the community, such special privileges would soon become redundant. 3. How best to nominate the MAG Chair? At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN Secretary-General. This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG develops into a body whose members are self-selected by the stakeholders. In that case, it could be that the MAG should select its own chair or chairs, and for that position to rotate between the stakeholder groups. In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the role of the Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder agenda, but to facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de facto multi-stakeholder bureau for the IGF that is responsible for facilitating the fulfilment of the mandate in the Tunis Agenda. 4. How best to organize open consultations? There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as meetings held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation from around the world, but as meetings that are held online, with provision for some participants to attend in person at a hub in Geneva, or at other hubs. Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves could come to be considered in the same terms. Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously (ie. through comments and discussions that are contributed over an extended period through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on). It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise an electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF participants as means of contributing to open consultations. In particular, MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity to online discussions outside of their closed mailing list, which limits the profile and accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a whole. 5. How best to link with regional meetings? The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance to a much broader community of Internet users and citizens, but at the same time we must be careful to ensure that these meetings meet the same basic process criteria as the IGF itself, including adequate participation by civil society at all levels. In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to governance processes than governmental and private sector groups, due to funding constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour. This may require that additional efforts be made (and funded where appropriate) to ensure that a plurality of civil society voices are heard in Internet governance processes. It is important that regional meetings play a more important role in IGF agenda-setting and issue-framing. The discussions that take place during the meetings, if summarized in an objectively and timely manner, could represent real regional contributions to the process. The outcomes of regional meetings should also serve to better clarify and sharpen discussions, reducing the complexity of themes into concrete issues to be addressed at the IGF. 6. How best to link with international processes and institutions? Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to bridge between online and offline discussions, so too there could be rapporteurs whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at the IGF and to forward them to external institutions, and to act as a proactive conduit for feedback from those institutions. Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and workshops, since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in the latter. Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions provided that a better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops back into main sessions is realised. A emerging model for this process (though other possible models may also be explored) is found in the "messages" or "recommendations" produced by national IGFs such IGF-D (Deutschland), and regional IGFs such as the East African IGF and EURODIG. Ideally this would become a two-way process in which the institutions addressed could also turn to the IGF with issues they wished the IGF to address through multi-stakeholder dialogue. -- 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 Tue Oct 12 19:02:08 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:02:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <224651.33226.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Hi Jeremy Thank you for getting me the ballot. I was wondering if my ballot was the unfinished one ? In any case can you make sure that my name remains on the ballot for the next year and I dont get eliminated. I have been with the WSIS and IGF since 2003 Thanks Shaila challenge the rules ...push the barriers.... ............live beyond your existential means !! From: Jeremy Malcolm To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Sat, October 9, 2010 9:19:39 PM Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator election results I am pleased to announce the results of the 2010 IGF coordinator elections. All candidates polled respectably, indicating that they were all well-qualified nominees for the post. However, we have a clear winner. Congratulations and welcome to my new colleague, Izumi Aizu. There were 107 attempts to vote, of which 103 were valid responses. The invalid responses were two respondents who commenced the survey but did not answer compulsory questions (one "Are you a member of the IGC" and the other, having answered that "Yes", not answering "Have you already voted"), another respondent who abandoned the survey before voting for a coordinator and tried again later successfully, and one who attempted to vote for coordinator twice. Of the 103 valid responses, 101 were from self-identified IGC members, 95 of whom claimed not to have voted already. Four of these remaining qualified voters did not choose to vote for a coordinator. Of the remaining 91 votes cast, Izumi received 52. Thanks also to Rafik who received 13 votes and Marilia who received 26. The public statistics for the poll, and a spreadsheet with the results of the election are both available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/38. A photo of the new coordinators is available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/17. I will write separately about the charter vote and the nominations committee. Here are some questions you may have about the results (though I can't really call them "frequently asked"): Q: Why do the public statistics show 100 (not 103) responses? A: Because by design of the software, these statistics exclude "incomplete" responses. Of the four respondents who did not choose a coordinator, one just skipped that question, whereas the others quit the survey in progress. The former's response is included in the public statistics, and the others are not. Q. Why do the public statistics show 98 (not 101) voters asserting membership of the IGC? A. See the answer to the previous question. Q: Why do the public statistics show 92 (not 95) persons claiming not to have already voted? A: See the answer to the previous question. Q. Why do there appear to be some votes missing from the CSV file (based on the consecutive numbering)? A. The missing ones at the beginning where from testing by me and Ginger. There are a small number of missing votes where I deleted them because the person mistakenly claimed to have voted already (see below). Q. Why do three people appear to have voted twice? A. One of these people mistakenly answered that he had voted already. I told him to vote again using the token sent to his other email address. Another gave up before getting to the coordinator vote, then started again; her first response was treated as invalid. The third does appear to be a double vote; in this case, the first response has been treated as invalid and the second, more complete response taken as definitive. It is not counted in the public statistics, but is retained in the spreadsheet of results. Q. Why did some people say that they had already voted, when they hadn't? A. I don't know, maybe they didn't read the question carefully enough? Anyone who contacted me to ask for the opportunity to re-cast their vote, was able to do so. A few, unfortunately, didn't contact me, and missed out on the opportunity to vote... Q. How did one person vote anonymously? A. It was not really anonymous, they just didn't provide their name. Their email address is news [at] chania.di.uoa.gr. Anyway, theirs was one of the invalid responses that was not counted, as they did not answer a compulsory question. Q. What is the difference between "No", "None" and "N/A"? A. "No" means you were asked a Yes/No question and chose the latter. "None", for the coordinator vote, means you were qualified to vote and chose to support none of the candidates. "N/A" means either you were not qualified to vote, or you didn't answer that question. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 12 21:09:20 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:09:20 +0700 Subject: [governance] Skype op for IGC member with Mexican consumer group's ITU plenipot press conference Message-ID: <226CD0D0-0575-46EF-AEEC-A0825EAEE00C@ciroap.org> Mexican consumer group Colectivo Ecologista Jalisco is holding a press conference in Guadalajara, Mexico alongside the 18th ITU plenipotentiary conference which is being held there, next Tuesday October 19th. I was invited to participate via Skype to discuss Internet issues that I consider fundamental, but it will be difficult for me due to travel. Is there anyone else who is interested in participating? If you speak Spanish (I don't), even better! -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 13 01:07:58 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:37:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation Message-ID: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> Hi All Find as enclosed an open letter to all stakeholders to participate in what is supposed to be an open consultation on 'enhanced cooperation' in NY on 14th December. However, the process is hardly open. It does not seem to be even as open as many traditional UN activities are. Both the Tunis Agenda, and the CSTD/ ECOSOC resolution (quoted in the letter) speaks of 'enhanced cooperation' itself as involving ' a balanced participation of all stakeholders '. It should be obvious that a consultation on 'enhanced cooperation', EC, (which is different from the process of enhanced cooperation ) should be even more open and participative that even EC itself. In fact it should be more or less, within limits of logistics constraints, completely open, though probably also structured enough that all governments, for instance, do get to speak all they want to (that is what they normally like to ensure/protect, UN style) However, the letter says that non -governmental stakeholders will only be allowed to give written contribution, plus a very tokenistic gesture of allowing just one representative (?? whose rep) to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all non governmental stakeholders (whew!) (in maybe about 5 minutes?). So basically they are calling for an inter-governmental consultation. This is not at all an open consultation, and i think we should not give it legitimacy as such. In fact, the letter clearly speaks of a "consultation with UN member states, Permanent Observers and other inter-governmental organizations to be held on....." So, it is simply not the "open and inclusive consultations involving all member states and other stakeholders....." that the recent ECOSOC resolution called for, which resolution has been quoted in the letter itself. I think all non-governmental stakeholders should refuse to accept it as an open consultation, and write to the SG/ USG immediately about it. If no changes in the format are forthcoming they may all together even agree not to participate in the consultations at all - not even submitting written contributions, and forgoing the 'one rep speaks for all nongov stakeholders' offer. On the other hand, if there are any genuine concerns of governments that the format should allow enough speak and discussion time for gov reps, which they may feel does not happen in fully open spaces, we can discuss and take them on board to devise a mutually acceptable format. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 10-3078_Civil Society and Private Sector Stakeholders.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 70295 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Oct 13 02:21:59 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:21:59 +1000 Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On the surface I agree with Parminder. Perhaps a parallel event could be organised for non government players and the UN SG asked to nominate one person to summarise the inputs of all governments in less than 5 minutes. Oh and governments could make written contributions if they so desire which may or may not be read or considered or circulated to meeting participants. But seriously, we should write and express our concerns at the format. Ian Peter From: parminder Reply-To: , parminder Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:37:58 +0530 To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation Hi All Find as enclosed an open letter to all stakeholders to participate in what is supposed to be an open consultation on 'enhanced cooperation' in NY on 14th December. However, the process is hardly open. It does not seem to be even as open as many traditional UN activities are. Both the Tunis Agenda, and the CSTD/ ECOSOC resolution (quoted in the letter) speaks of 'enhanced cooperation' itself as involving ' a balanced participation of all stakeholders '. It should be obvious that a consultation on 'enhanced cooperation', EC, (which is different from the process of enhanced cooperation ) should be even more open and participative that even EC itself. In fact it should be more or less, within limits of logistics constraints, completely open, though probably also structured enough that all governments, for instance, do get to speak all they want to (that is what they normally like to ensure/protect, UN style) However, the letter says that non -governmental stakeholders will only be allowed to give written contribution, plus a very tokenistic gesture of allowing just one representative (?? whose rep) to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all non governmental stakeholders (whew!) (in maybe about 5 minutes?). So basically they are calling for an inter-governmental consultation. This is not at all an open consultation, and i think we should not give it legitimacy as such. In fact, the letter clearly speaks of a "consultation with UN member states, Permanent Observers and other inter-governmental organizations to be held on....." So, it is simply not the "open and inclusive consultations involving all member states and other stakeholders....." that the recent ECOSOC resolution called for, which resolution has been quoted in the letter itself. I think all non-governmental stakeholders should refuse to accept it as an open consultation, and write to the SG/ USG immediately about it. If no changes in the format are forthcoming they may all together even agree not to participate in the consultations at all - not even submitting written contributions, and forgoing the 'one rep speaks for all nongov stakeholders' offer. On the other hand, if there are any genuine concerns of governments that the format should allow enough speak and discussion time for gov reps, which they may feel does not happen in fully open spaces, we can discuss and take them on board to devise a mutually acceptable format. 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 anriette at apc.org Wed Oct 13 05:21:44 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:21:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4CB57A28.3080509@apc.org> Agree with Parminder and Ian that we should react quite strongly to this. I propose that our primary intervention could be that the Palais in Geneva would be a more appropriate venue for this consultation. If the space constraints in New York that mentions will undermine the openness of the consultation, then surely the most obvious solution is to change the venue. Anriette On 13/10/10 07:07, parminder wrote: > Hi All > > Find as enclosed an open letter to all stakeholders to participate in > what is supposed to be an open consultation on 'enhanced cooperation' > in NY on 14th December. > > However, the process is hardly open. It does not seem to be even as > open as many traditional UN activities are. Both the Tunis Agenda, and > the CSTD/ ECOSOC resolution (quoted in the letter) speaks of 'enhanced > cooperation' itself as involving ' a balanced participation of all > stakeholders '. > > It should be obvious that a consultation on 'enhanced cooperation', > EC, (which is different from the process of enhanced cooperation ) > should be even more open and participative that even EC itself. In > fact it should be more or less, within limits of logistics > constraints, completely open, though probably also structured enough > that all governments, for instance, do get to speak all they want to > (that is what they normally like to ensure/protect, UN style) > > However, the letter says that non -governmental stakeholders will only > be allowed to give written contribution, plus a very tokenistic > gesture of allowing just one representative (?? whose rep) to speak > during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all non > governmental stakeholders (whew!) (in maybe about 5 minutes?). So > basically they are calling for an inter-governmental consultation. > This is not at all an open consultation, and i think we should not > give it legitimacy as such. > > In fact, the letter clearly speaks of a "consultation with UN member > states, Permanent Observers and other inter-governmental organizations > to be held on....." > > So, it is simply not the "open and inclusive consultations involving > all member states and other stakeholders....." that the recent ECOSOC > resolution called for, which resolution has been quoted in the letter > itself. > > I think all non-governmental stakeholders should refuse to accept it > as an open consultation, and write to the SG/ USG immediately about > it. If no changes in the format are forthcoming they may all together > even agree not to participate in the consultations at all - not even > submitting written contributions, and forgoing the 'one rep speaks for > all nongov stakeholders' offer. > > On the other hand, if there are any genuine concerns of governments > that the format should allow enough speak and discussion time for gov > reps, which they may feel does not happen in fully open spaces, we can > discuss and take them on board to devise a mutually acceptable format. > > Parminder > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director association for progressive communications www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Wed Oct 13 06:57:59 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 06:57:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > It seems to me that if one actually believes that governments are merely > expressions of human sovereignty, that authority derives from the > consent of the governed, then it would follow that in matters of > internet governance that corporate and governmental voices should fall > before the weight of the collective opinion of the community of people > affected by the internet. Right, Karl This is why I am unenthusiastic about setting up ALAC as a "counterbalance" to GAC. First, because it is unlikely that ALAC can carry that weight; second because we want authority to devolve to people, not a committee of 15 appointed people. Anyway, McTim, the real solution is for governments to become involved directly in bottom up policy formulation in an equal-status process, not to set up _another_ silo like the GAC that is empowered to second-guess, intervene externally or otherwise overrule the bottom up policy making process. --MM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Wed Oct 13 07:03:18 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 07:03:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Agree that this is a farce. Do we refuse to comment at all and take it to the public sphere, or inundate them with written comments criticizing the approach? --MM From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:08 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation Hi All Find as enclosed an open letter to all stakeholders to participate in what is supposed to be an open consultation on 'enhanced cooperation' in NY on 14th December. However, the process is hardly open. It does not seem to be even as open as many traditional UN activities are. Both the Tunis Agenda, and the CSTD/ ECOSOC resolution (quoted in the letter) speaks of 'enhanced cooperation' itself as involving ' a balanced participation of all stakeholders '. It should be obvious that a consultation on 'enhanced cooperation', EC, (which is different from the process of enhanced cooperation ) should be even more open and participative that even EC itself. In fact it should be more or less, within limits of logistics constraints, completely open, though probably also structured enough that all governments, for instance, do get to speak all they want to (that is what they normally like to ensure/protect, UN style) However, the letter says that non -governmental stakeholders will only be allowed to give written contribution, plus a very tokenistic gesture of allowing just one representative (?? whose rep) to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all non governmental stakeholders (whew!) (in maybe about 5 minutes?). So basically they are calling for an inter-governmental consultation. This is not at all an open consultation, and i think we should not give it legitimacy as such. In fact, the letter clearly speaks of a "consultation with UN member states, Permanent Observers and other inter-governmental organizations to be held on....." So, it is simply not the "open and inclusive consultations involving all member states and other stakeholders....." that the recent ECOSOC resolution called for, which resolution has been quoted in the letter itself. I think all non-governmental stakeholders should refuse to accept it as an open consultation, and write to the SG/ USG immediately about it. If no changes in the format are forthcoming they may all together even agree not to participate in the consultations at all - not even submitting written contributions, and forgoing the 'one rep speaks for all nongov stakeholders' offer. On the other hand, if there are any genuine concerns of governments that the format should allow enough speak and discussion time for gov reps, which they may feel does not happen in fully open spaces, we can discuss and take them on board to devise a mutually acceptable format. 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 gpaque at gmail.com Wed Oct 13 07:41:43 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 07:11:43 -0430 Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4CB59AF7.8020308@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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Oct 13 07:54:24 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:54:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF3BF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <3A941447-3CCE-4A22-824D-A694DDAD8B5F@graduateinstitute.ch> <4CB0A4FC.9080704@gmx.net>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07263@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF3BF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <87805B6D-6F52-4C1E-AE03-0A48F1BAE68E@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi I haven't had time to follow the Plenipot closely but was just looking at the press section and noticed this: ————— http://www.itu.int/plenipotentiary/2010/newsroom/highlights/oct06.html WSIS Forum meets Internet Governance Forum A proposal by the Russian Federation was put forward to consider whether the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) should become part of the WSIS Forum, as it was suggested that all WSIS outcomes, which include the IGF, should be dealt with in the WSIS Forum. The United States and Norway (on behalf of CEPT) suggested that the IGF should be kept as an independent body and that it retain its “unique” non-binding, bottom-up, non-decisional, multi-stakeholder status. Egypt questioned the rationale for folding the IGF into the WSIS Forum and noted that the authorities responsible for the future of the IGF are the UN General Assembly, Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD). The Chairman of the Working Group of the Plenary concluded that the proposal from the Russian Federation was not relevant to the outcome of PP-10 and that it should be presented to the appropriate bodies of the UN system. In fact, the future of the Internet Governance Forum is scheduled for review by the Second Committee of the UN General Assembly and that review will be completed before the end of the year. ————— So, that's at least one less lousy idea/development to have on our radars…. Bill On Oct 10, 2010, at 11:12 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > 1st, I add my congrats to Izumi and thanks to Rafik and Marilla. > > 2nd, I agree with Wolfgang the Plenipot machinations should be seen in broader context. The likelihood of getting something objectionable agreed to this time around is unlikely. But they'll be back, whether at > next Plenipot or at UNGA or WSIS Forum or...IGF. > a) which gets to main point, how well can IGC manage to broaden its view to simultaneously engage with and monitor whole range of bodies and actions in play in Internet Governance in 2011. IGF helps of course but...we are facing a challenge. > > 3rd,Note that while at the Plenipotentiary level the traditional rules of the 145-year-old ITU game are clearly evident, and political posturing is dominant, at lower levels of course cs has long participated as invited experts often, without the huge or any fees. (eg, see Lee making fun of early ITU proposals to regulate VoIP as unworkable at www.itu.int/osg/spu/ni/iptel/workshop/mcknight.pdf - and I give credit, some at ITU have sense of humor - I've been invited back since ; ). > > 4th, to expect a perpetually broke international organization that governments expect to raise significant income from document sales and sector memberships - to forego that income, or carve out exceptions for individuals and civil society - just ain't happening on any broad scale. At least it hasn't yet, and some of us have been working on cracking this nut for..sigh, decades. We've won some and lost some over the years. > a) and let's remember that ITU is one of ICANN's parents, there at conception, even on the first blind date, so to a certain extent we are dealing with the older authority figure vs the teenager who wants to pretend it never had anything to do with - mom or dad. > b) not that teen is perfect either....but anyway that is discussion for different day, as to what elements of present ITU critique of ICANN GAC are on target, and what not. > > 5th, in ITU case, the real cs representation question is what Avri and Bill bandied about, ie either persuading an existing CS organization to decide to be our house techie org/ITU-T (and/or D) sector member, ie raise the $20k, and commit $X more to support more or less standing representation whether by an organizational rep or by multiple cs individuals who are able to come in under that org's membership. Maybe one joins T and another D....and shares notes and costs? And permits say IGC members - to participate as honorary members of either org?? ; )If/when any of us have $ and time to attend ITU meetings. > Which is time-consuming and expensive....and cs as whole hasn't cared enough about ITU to bother. And foundations and universities yawn if cs types start talking up ITU. > > ISOC and ITU on other hand have had a more or less amicable coordination and division of labor arrangement in place for years, with Harvard's Scott Bradner - certified good guy - the liaison. Maybe it has changed lately, I haven't been paying attention. Not that it's easy but it is ongoing. > > ICANN is free to do the same, and if/when in ITU's house it must like everyone else play by house rules. I have previously suggested it is past time for ICANN if only for self-defense to be on the ground in Geneva, permanently. Or at least appoint a specific liaison a la Scott Bradner...but that is for ICANN to decide. > > Starting a new ITU/cswatch org as Avri and Bill spoke of...is doable too, if folks have time and energy and can find the $. > > 6th, with regard to one of our higher ambitions, of initiating change in ITU-CS relations....given that it is an international treaty organization only certain things are possible....without a change in the treaty. > Therefore, if CS cares enough about ITU to decide (at least within IGC) that ITU reform is an objective, then we are beginning a 4-8 year process, ie through 1-2 Plenipot cycles, and good luck to us. It can be done but it is a slow slog. > > 7th, while I have suggested it is real hard to change ITU, in fact the org is always changing. For example some of us helped past Sec Gens - in our individual capacity of course - kill off the CCIR which had outlived its usefulness. Bill, or maybe Marilyn, if we buy them enough drinks, could tell us near-endless behind the scenes tales of when they helped - or failed at - rewriting ITU agendas... > > 8th, Point is, if we had a specific, plausible plan or suggestion for change in ITU we could pursue it. Over time. Meaning rather than just playing defense we can go on the offensive too. I think Wolfgang's note is a good start on some of the stakes, but recalling we are playing a mutli-dimensional global chess game, we can't just worry about Plenipot, which is too far along this time and unlikely to be subject to outside influence at this point. (If more substantial rumors of bad decisions getting rammed through are proven, then there are ways to undermine that, but at moment we just have a Russian shot across the bow and no surprise.) > > 9th, and I promise i will stop soon, 2011 should indeed be seen as a pivotal year for tipping - IGF, GAID, UNGA, WSIS Forum, ICANN, and who knows even ITU, in one direction or another. Shaping/setting the agenda is our task, meeting locations and timing is just the playing field. (Though I do need to note the ironic twist that moving a WSIS Forum meeting further from Geneva is seen still as making it more ITUish, when one might think just the opposite.) > > In sum, we play our game, across venues, for cs objectives. CS and yeah business interests, in spite of international politics, remain the prime movers in most of these fora, including ITU-T, for which ITU staff play mainly secretarial/support role. So we need first to step back i suggest and decide what our prime objectives are for 2011...and then pass a very heavy load to Izumi and Jeremy to help us execute on. > > Starting with the suggested statement is a good 1st step, and if well done, can be recycled in various ways through the year of agenda setting. > > best, > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2010 5:45 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Klein; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: AW: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF > > Hi Bill and others > > thanks for pointing to the IGF part of the Russian speech. Both together (the attack aginst ICANN & the IGF) look like an integrated strategy where the key idea is to bring the Internet under an intergovernmental mechanism and to kill the concept of "multistakeholderism". In the "Russian model" non-governmental stakeholders will be "invited" only under certain circumstances, which are defined and controlled by governments. This is the old hierarchical top down policy model. This is how the ITU works. This is how the ITU organized its "World Telecommunication Policy Forum" (WTPF). > > Here is my personal story from the WTPF 2009 in Lisbon. There was no free access to the WTPF. As an individual (or NGO) you had to write an application, explaining why you want to participate. This application was checked by an unknown third party. I applied and after a couple of days I got the permission for registration. The three day Forum was organized in a way that the whole first day was filled with official speeches by governmental delegations. There was no debate. There was a speaking order, reserved for governmental speakers only on Day 1. People like me with a NGO-badge had to find a chair in the back of the room. There was a clear seperation between the governmental and the non-governmental rows. On Day 2, when working sessions started, I wanted to make a comment to one of the speeches. But the Chair (my friend Abdullah from Saudi-Arabia who was also member of the WGIG) apologized with friendly words and explained to me that according to the rules of procedures I am not allowed to speak. Non-govenmental speakers could speak only if they are "invited" or of they are "private sector members of the ITU". As a private sector member you have to pay a membership fee of about 20.000.00 Swiss Francs annualy. I said that as an indivdual I can not afford to pay such a price for a three minute statement. He proposed that I should write down my intervention and promised that this will be published on the open part of the ITU website (you know that 80 per cent of ITU documents are not available to the public). > > Another example was the preparatory meeting for the WSIS 2010 Forum, which took place at the ITU Montbrillant building in Geneva in February 2010. The podium which explained the planned programme for the WSIS Forum was filled with representatives of intergovernmental organizations only. It was chaired by Houlin Zhao the now re-elected Deputy Secretary General of the ITU. When I asked him in the public debate about the principle of multistakeholderism and why no representatives of civil society and private sector are on the podium he replied, that UNESCO (which was on the podium) has hundreds of NGOs accredited and ITU has hundreds of private sector members. This is enough to meet the criteria of multistakeholderism. Wow! > > Lisbon April 2009 and Geneva February 2010 rememberd my at the painful discussions on the "Rules of Procedures" during PrepCom1 at WSIS in June 2002. There was a general impression that with WSIS I, WGIG, WSIS II and the IGF we moved forward towards a truly multistakeholder dialogue, inspired by the Internet Governance definition, as a guiding principle accepted even by the Heads of State. However obviously some governments do not (and/or will not) remember what they signed and secondly they have a special interpretation of the agreed texts. > > On the one hand one could argue that the Russian speech is just one point of view of one ITU member state. Personally I do not see that this position has a chance to get consensus by the whole Plenipotentiary Conference, where all governments have to agree. On the other hand the statement makes clear that the battle of 2005 is not over but has just restarted. > > One scenario could be that the ITU discussion is used by some governments to test out how far they can go in the UNGA discussion on continuation and improvement of the IGF. The "improvement" debate is for 2011 and the decision will be made by the UNGA in November 2011. With other words, a WSIS Forum in May 2011 in New York (is the site already decided?) and an IGF in September 2011 in Nairobi would compete against each other, evaluated then by the governments of the UN member states in November 2011. > > Another target of the Russian initiative could be to prepare the ground for a third WSIS in 2015. The deal in Guadalajara could be that the ITU gives up (for the moment) to becomne a RIR but would get a mandate to organize a 3rd WSIS. Under a WSIS umbrella governments would get another opportunity to work towards a model, where ICANN is pushed into an intergovenrmental framewok. If people are interested into the various ideas they should go back to "model 3" and "model 4" of the WGIG report from 2005. BTW, remember the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 1998 in Minneapolis, when ITU gave up (for the moment) its intention to get the hand over the DNS and IP addresses via the IAHC but got as a compensation the mandate to start the WSIS process. > > No new arguments, no new ideas. Old wine in new bottles. But 2010 is not 2005 and not 1998. We have one billion more Internet users and dozens of more problems (CC, IOT, SN etc.) which have only little to do with the DNS. They call for more multistakeholder dialog and bottom up PDP in an open and transparent environment and not for less. As it was said hundred times in 2005: The political challenges of the 21st century can not be settled with the diplomatic instruments of the 20th century. We have to be innovative and have to create something which is able to manage these challenges. ICANN and IGF is not the end of history. In contrary it is the beginning of a new historical phase. But we have to look and move forward, not backwards. > > What could be done? > > 1. IGC members, in particular from developing countries, should try to contact their national representatives participating in Guadalajara (and in the forthcoming UNGA discussion in the 2nd Committee) to explain them the background of the battle to enhanced their knowledge and understanding of the various dimensions of the issue > > 2. The IGC should work on a broader document on the future of Internet Governance with special parts on "improvement" of ICANN and the IGF. A first version could be presented at the forthcoming November IGF/MAG consultations in Geneva. > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > > > Wolfgang > ________________________________ > > Von: Norbert Klein im Auftrag von Norbert Klein > Gesendet: Sa 09.10.2010 19:23 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF > > > > On 10/09/2010 12:40 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> Dear Bill, >> >> You are definitely pointing a major concern that should have IGC take >> a strong position against as well as raise this issue in the upcoming >> open consultation as well as the CSTD IGF improvements working group. >> Do you deem it feasible that we use this thread to develop a position >> statement from IGC to both the IGF and CSTD against the issue? >> > I really hope something like this will start. > > > Norbert > >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:20 PM, William Drake >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> This is related to the message I just sent concerning the ITU/GAC proposal, but it merits a different thread. The list discussion has all been building off the Kevin Murphy piece Wolfgang circulated. Alas, the article being ICANN-oriented did not bother to take note of another part of the RCC proposal that should be of some concern here. The Russian text includes a section on The Future of the Internet Governance Forum that says, inter alia, >>> >>> "The WSIS Forum 2010 was held in May 2010 in Geneva, and the venue for the next one, in 2011, is the United Nations headquarters in New York. The question of Internet governance is just one of the many questions raised by WSIS, and it would appear logical that IGF should in future be held as part of the WSIS Forum in order for there to be a common platform for all stakeholders seeking to implement WSIS outcomes. This will serve to broaden the audience, particularly within developing countries, and reduce costs for organizers and participants alike. Proposal: To consider IGF as a part of the WSIS Forum in the interests of combining efforts, facilitating participation, especially for developing-country representatives, reducing costs and avoiding duplication of effort." >>> >>> So voila. This isn't exactly news either, I had ITU staffers tell me in Tunis when the IGF was endorsed that "we'll be running this thing in five years." There's always been a contingent of governments, generally the same ones supporting ITU uber ICANN, arguing that ITU should have the IGF; indeed, the Russians said this in Tunis, and insisted on the inclusion in the mandate of those provisions about ITU competence etc. And Toure et al have in the past held up the WTPF, the WSIS Forum, etc as evidence that the ITU does this sort of thing better. All of which harks back to our earlier debate on the WSIS Forum and whether it would be a swell idea to hold it in NYC where UN GA reps could see what a proper UN forum looks like, etc. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Oct 13 08:04:36 2010 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:04:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF In-Reply-To: <87805B6D-6F52-4C1E-AE03-0A48F1BAE68E@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <3A941447-3CCE-4A22-824D-A694DDAD8B5F@graduateinstitute.ch> <4CB0A4FC.9080704@gmx.net>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07263@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF3BF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu><87805B6D-6F52-4C1E-AE03-0A48F1BAE68E@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <1357343572-1286971434-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-336801456-@bda047.bisx.prodap.on.blackberry> Hi Bill, I guess that you are talking about the adhoc working group which started working ? It seems that is possible to follow the webcast without password this time, it seems transcripts are not available and I am not sure for documents http://www.itu.int/plenipotentiary/2010/newsroom/webcast/ You should use your twitter account and follow the hashtag #pp10 there are some people doing live tweeting. Rafik BlackBerry from DOCOMO -----Original Message----- From: William Drake Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:54:24 To: Governance Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,William Drake Subject: Re: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF Hi I haven't had time to follow the Plenipot closely but was just looking at the press section and noticed this:  http://www.itu.int/plenipotentiary/2010/newsroom/highlights/oct06.html WSIS Forum meets Internet Governance Forum A proposal by the Russian Federation was put forward to consider whether the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) should become part of the WSIS Forum, as it was suggested that all WSIS outcomes, which include the IGF, should be dealt with in the WSIS Forum. The United States and Norway (on behalf of CEPT) suggested that the IGF should be kept as an independent body and that it retain its “unique” non-binding, bottom-up, non-decisional, multi-stakeholder status. Egypt questioned the rationale for folding the IGF into the WSIS Forum and noted that the authorities responsible for the future of the IGF are the UN General Assembly, Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD). The Chairman of the Working Group of the Plenary concluded that the proposal from the Russian Federation was not relevant to the outcome of PP-10 and that it should be presented to the appropriate bodies of the UN system. In fact, the future of the Internet Governance Forum is scheduled for review by the Second Committee of the UN General Assembly and that review will be completed before the end of the year.  So, that's at least one less lousy idea/development to have on our radars…. Bill On Oct 10, 2010, at 11:12 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > 1st, I add my congrats to Izumi and thanks to Rafik and Marilla. > > 2nd, I agree with Wolfgang the Plenipot machinations should be seen in broader context. The likelihood of getting something objectionable agreed to this time around is unlikely. But they'll be back, whether at > next Plenipot or at UNGA or WSIS Forum or...IGF. > a) which gets to main point, how well can IGC manage to broaden its view to simultaneously engage with and monitor whole range of bodies and actions in play in Internet Governance in 2011. IGF helps of course but...we are facing a challenge. > > 3rd,Note that while at the Plenipotentiary level the traditional rules of the 145-year-old ITU game are clearly evident, and political posturing is dominant, at lower levels of course cs has long participated as invited experts often, without the huge or any fees. (eg, see Lee making fun of early ITU proposals to regulate VoIP as unworkable at www.itu.int/osg/spu/ni/iptel/workshop/mcknight.pdf - and I give credit, some at ITU have sense of humor - I've been invited back since ; ). > > 4th, to expect a perpetually broke international organization that governments expect to raise significant income from document sales and sector memberships - to forego that income, or carve out exceptions for individuals and civil society - just ain't happening on any broad scale. At least it hasn't yet, and some of us have been working on cracking this nut for..sigh, decades. We've won some and lost some over the years. > a) and let's remember that ITU is one of ICANN's parents, there at conception, even on the first blind date, so to a certain extent we are dealing with the older authority figure vs the teenager who wants to pretend it never had anything to do with - mom or dad. > b) not that teen is perfect either....but anyway that is discussion for different day, as to what elements of present ITU critique of ICANN GAC are on target, and what not. > > 5th, in ITU case, the real cs representation question is what Avri and Bill bandied about, ie either persuading an existing CS organization to decide to be our house techie org/ITU-T (and/or D) sector member, ie raise the $20k, and commit $X more to support more or less standing representation whether by an organizational rep or by multiple cs individuals who are able to come in under that org's membership. Maybe one joins T and another D....and shares notes and costs? And permits say IGC members - to participate as honorary members of either org?? ; )If/when any of us have $ and time to attend ITU meetings. > Which is time-consuming and expensive....and cs as whole hasn't cared enough about ITU to bother. And foundations and universities yawn if cs types start talking up ITU. > > ISOC and ITU on other hand have had a more or less amicable coordination and division of labor arrangement in place for years, with Harvard's Scott Bradner - certified good guy - the liaison. Maybe it has changed lately, I haven't been paying attention. Not that it's easy but it is ongoing. > > ICANN is free to do the same, and if/when in ITU's house it must like everyone else play by house rules. I have previously suggested it is past time for ICANN if only for self-defense to be on the ground in Geneva, permanently. Or at least appoint a specific liaison a la Scott Bradner...but that is for ICANN to decide. > > Starting a new ITU/cswatch org as Avri and Bill spoke of...is doable too, if folks have time and energy and can find the $. > > 6th, with regard to one of our higher ambitions, of initiating change in ITU-CS relations....given that it is an international treaty organization only certain things are possible....without a change in the treaty. > Therefore, if CS cares enough about ITU to decide (at least within IGC) that ITU reform is an objective, then we are beginning a 4-8 year process, ie through 1-2 Plenipot cycles, and good luck to us. It can be done but it is a slow slog. > > 7th, while I have suggested it is real hard to change ITU, in fact the org is always changing. For example some of us helped past Sec Gens - in our individual capacity of course - kill off the CCIR which had outlived its usefulness. Bill, or maybe Marilyn, if we buy them enough drinks, could tell us near-endless behind the scenes tales of when they helped - or failed at - rewriting ITU agendas... > > 8th, Point is, if we had a specific, plausible plan or suggestion for change in ITU we could pursue it. Over time. Meaning rather than just playing defense we can go on the offensive too. I think Wolfgang's note is a good start on some of the stakes, but recalling we are playing a mutli-dimensional global chess game, we can't just worry about Plenipot, which is too far along this time and unlikely to be subject to outside influence at this point. (If more substantial rumors of bad decisions getting rammed through are proven, then there are ways to undermine that, but at moment we just have a Russian shot across the bow and no surprise.) > > 9th, and I promise i will stop soon, 2011 should indeed be seen as a pivotal year for tipping - IGF, GAID, UNGA, WSIS Forum, ICANN, and who knows even ITU, in one direction or another. Shaping/setting the agenda is our task, meeting locations and timing is just the playing field. (Though I do need to note the ironic twist that moving a WSIS Forum meeting further from Geneva is seen still as making it more ITUish, when one might think just the opposite.) > > In sum, we play our game, across venues, for cs objectives. CS and yeah business interests, in spite of international politics, remain the prime movers in most of these fora, including ITU-T, for which ITU staff play mainly secretarial/support role. So we need first to step back i suggest and decide what our prime objectives are for 2011...and then pass a very heavy load to Izumi and Jeremy to help us execute on. > > Starting with the suggested statement is a good 1st step, and if well done, can be recycled in various ways through the year of agenda setting. > > best, > > Lee >________________________________________ > From: "Kleinwchter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2010 5:45 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Klein; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: AW: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF > > Hi Bill and others > > thanks for pointing to the IGF part of the Russian speech. Both together (the attack aginst ICANN & the IGF) look like an integrated strategy where the key idea is to bring the Internet under an intergovernmental mechanism and to kill the concept of "multistakeholderism". In the "Russian model" non-governmental stakeholders will be "invited" only under certain circumstances, which are defined and controlled by governments. This is the old hierarchical top down policy model. This is how the ITU works. This is how the ITU organized its "World Telecommunication Policy Forum" (WTPF). > > Here is my personal story from the WTPF 2009 in Lisbon. There was no free access to the WTPF. As an individual (or NGO) you had to write an application, explaining why you want to participate. This application was checked by an unknown third party. I applied and after a couple of days I got the permission for registration. The three day Forum was organized in a way that the whole first day was filled with official speeches by governmental delegations. There was no debate. There was a speaking order, reserved for governmental speakers only on Day 1. People like me with a NGO-badge had to find a chair in the back of the room. There was a clear seperation between the governmental and the non-governmental rows. On Day 2, when working sessions started, I wanted to make a comment to one of the speeches. But the Chair (my friend Abdullah from Saudi-Arabia who was also member of the WGIG) apologized with friendly words and explained to me that according to the rules of procedures I am not allowed to speak. Non-govenmental speakers could speak only if they are "invited" or of they are "private sector members of the ITU". As a private sector member you have to pay a membership fee of about 20.000.00 Swiss Francs annualy. I said that as an indivdual I can not afford to pay such a price for a three minute statement. He proposed that I should write down my intervention and promised that this will be published on the open part of the ITU website (you know that 80 per cent of ITU documents are not available to the public). > > Another example was the preparatory meeting for the WSIS 2010 Forum, which took place at the ITU Montbrillant building in Geneva in February 2010. The podium which explained the planned programme for the WSIS Forum was filled with representatives of intergovernmental organizations only. It was chaired by Houlin Zhao the now re-elected Deputy Secretary General of the ITU. When I asked him in the public debate about the principle of multistakeholderism and why no representatives of civil society and private sector are on the podium he replied, that UNESCO (which was on the podium) has hundreds of NGOs accredited and ITU has hundreds of private sector members. This is enough to meet the criteria of multistakeholderism. Wow! > > Lisbon April 2009 and Geneva February 2010 rememberd my at the painful discussions on the "Rules of Procedures" during PrepCom1 at WSIS in June 2002. There was a general impression that with WSIS I, WGIG, WSIS II and the IGF we moved forward towards a truly multistakeholder dialogue, inspired by the Internet Governance definition, as a guiding principle accepted even by the Heads of State. However obviously some governments do not (and/or will not) remember what they signed and secondly they have a special interpretation of the agreed texts. > > On the one hand one could argue that the Russian speech is just one point of view of one ITU member state. Personally I do not see that this position has a chance to get consensus by the whole Plenipotentiary Conference, where all governments have to agree. On the other hand the statement makes clear that the battle of 2005 is not over but has just restarted. > > One scenario could be that the ITU discussion is used by some governments to test out how far they can go in the UNGA discussion on continuation and improvement of the IGF. The "improvement" debate is for 2011 and the decision will be made by the UNGA in November 2011. With other words, a WSIS Forum in May 2011 in New York (is the site already decided?) and an IGF in September 2011 in Nairobi would compete against each other, evaluated then by the governments of the UN member states in November 2011. > > Another target of the Russian initiative could be to prepare the ground for a third WSIS in 2015. The deal in Guadalajara could be that the ITU gives up (for the moment) to becomne a RIR but would get a mandate to organize a 3rd WSIS. Under a WSIS umbrella governments would get another opportunity to work towards a model, where ICANN is pushed into an intergovenrmental framewok. If people are interested into the various ideas they should go back to "model 3" and "model 4" of the WGIG report from 2005. BTW, remember the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 1998 in Minneapolis, when ITU gave up (for the moment) its intention to get the hand over the DNS and IP addresses via the IAHC but got as a compensation the mandate to start the WSIS process. > > No new arguments, no new ideas. Old wine in new bottles. But 2010 is not 2005 and not 1998. We have one billion more Internet users and dozens of more problems (CC, IOT, SN etc.) which have only little to do with the DNS. They call for more multistakeholder dialog and bottom up PDP in an open and transparent environment and not for less. As it was said hundred times in 2005: The political challenges of the 21st century can not be settled with the diplomatic instruments of the 20th century. We have to be innovative and have to create something which is able to manage these challenges. ICANN and IGF is not the end of history. In contrary it is the beginning of a new historical phase. But we have to look and move forward, not backwards. > > What could be done? > > 1. IGC members, in particular from developing countries, should try to contact their national representatives participating in Guadalajara (and in the forthcoming UNGA discussion in the 2nd Committee) to explain them the background of the battle to enhanced their knowledge and understanding of the various dimensions of the issue > > 2. The IGC should work on a broader document on the future of Internet Governance with special parts on "improvement" of ICANN and the IGF. A first version could be presented at the forthcoming November IGF/MAG consultations in Geneva. > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > > > Wolfgang >________________________________ > > Von: Norbert Klein im Auftrag von Norbert Klein > Gesendet: Sa 09.10.2010 19:23 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF > > > > On 10/09/2010 12:40 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> Dear Bill, >> >> You are definitely pointing a major concern that should have IGC take >> a strong position against as well as raise this issue in the upcoming >> open consultation as well as the CSTD IGF improvements working group. >> Do you deem it feasible that we use this thread to develop a position >> statement from IGC to both the IGF and CSTD against the issue? >> > I really hope something like this will start. > > > Norbert > >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:20 PM, William Drake >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> This is related to the message I just sent concerning the ITU/GAC proposal, but it merits a different thread. The list discussion has all been building off the Kevin Murphy piece Wolfgang circulated. Alas, the article being ICANN-oriented did not bother to take note of another part of the RCC proposal that should be of some concern here. The Russian text includes a section on The Future of the Internet Governance Forum that says, inter alia, >>> >>> "The WSIS Forum 2010 was held in May 2010 in Geneva, and the venue for the next one, in 2011, is the United Nations headquarters in New York. The question of Internet governance is just one of the many questions raised by WSIS, and it would appear logical that IGF should in future be held as part of the WSIS Forum in order for there to be a common platform for all stakeholders seeking to implement WSIS outcomes. This will serve to broaden the audience, particularly within developing countries, and reduce costs for organizers and participants alike. Proposal: To consider IGF as a part of the WSIS Forum in the interests of combining efforts, facilitating participation, especially for developing-country representatives, reducing costs and avoiding duplication of effort." >>> >>> So voila. This isn't exactly news either, I had ITU staffers tell me in Tunis when the IGF was endorsed that "we'll be running this thing in five years." There's always been a contingent of governments, generally the same ones supporting ITU uber ICANN, arguing that ITU should have the IGF; indeed, the Russians said this in Tunis, and insisted on the inclusion in the mandate of those provisions about ITU competence etc. And Toure et al have in the past held up the WTPF, the WSIS Forum, etc as evidence that the ITU does this sort of thing better. All of which harks back to our earlier debate on the WSIS Forum and whether it would be a swell idea to hold it in NYC where UN GA reps could see what a proper UN forum looks like, etc. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 13 08:11:27 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:11:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <4CB59AF7.8020308@paque.net> References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB59AF7.8020308@paque.net> Message-ID: <3F6B87A0-880A-4822-A960-D095A284ED14@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi I agree with Ginger, a boycott would raise few eyebrows and have little to no impact. Disengagement doesn't count for much when they're barely thinking about us in the first place. If anything, it could be taken as evidence we don't care, or are too weak to even raise a voice. In a similar vein, in Vilnius I had some IO secretariat people tell me that the lack of response to ITU's online "consultation" a couple years ago concerning possible CS participation therein showed we were disinterested and pretty much irrelevant, hence no opening of ITU was needed. While coordination could be hard for various reasons, IGC might consider trying to work with the ICC and ISOC on this. We've made common cause in the past (mostly in WSIS) on process issues concerning the treatment of non-state actors etc, and any joint effort would probably resonate much more loudly than CS complaining solo. Best, Bill On Oct 13, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > In Venezuela it was very obvious that boycotting an election, or a process, leaves your 'opponent' with a 'legal' dictatorship. We cannot willingly give up our voice. > > In our recent poll, the most important issue for the IGC members was precisely 'enhanced cooperation', as I reinforced in my opening statement at the Vilnius IGF. We must raise our voice with a strong statement. > > We must also look for agreement/support/enhanced cooperation with other non-governmental groups--academia, CS, business, etc. so that those who agree make separate and united statements. > > This is a pivotal point imho. We must act decisively and in true 'enhanced cooperation'. We must work in a way that fosters cooperation, with a strong, reinforced--not inundated, valid position. > > We need concrete steps to move forward. How are other groups: APC, and others working with this issue? > > Best, gp > > > > On 10/13/2010 6:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Agree that this is a farce. >> Do we refuse to comment at all and take it to the public sphere, or inundate them with written comments criticizing the approach? >> --MM >> >> From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:08 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation >> >> Hi All >> >> Find as enclosed an open letter to all stakeholders to participate in what is supposed to be an open consultation on 'enhanced cooperation' in NY on 14th December. >> >> However, the process is hardly open. It does not seem to be even as open as many traditional UN activities are. Both the Tunis Agenda, and the CSTD/ ECOSOC resolution (quoted in the letter) speaks of 'enhanced cooperation' itself as involving ' a balanced participation of all stakeholders '. >> >> It should be obvious that a consultation on 'enhanced cooperation', EC, (which is different from the process of enhanced cooperation ) should be even more open and participative that even EC itself. In fact it should be more or less, within limits of logistics constraints, completely open, though probably also structured enough that all governments, for instance, do get to speak all they want to (that is what they normally like to ensure/protect, UN style) >> >> However, the letter says that non -governmental stakeholders will only be allowed to give written contribution, plus a very tokenistic gesture of allowing just one representative (?? whose rep) to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all non governmental stakeholders (whew!) (in maybe about 5 minutes?). So basically they are calling for an inter-governmental consultation. This is not at all an open consultation, and i think we should not give it legitimacy as such. >> >> In fact, the letter clearly speaks of a "consultation with UN member states, Permanent Observers and other inter-governmental organizations to be held on....." >> >> So, it is simply not the "open and inclusive consultations involving all member states and other stakeholders....." that the recent ECOSOC resolution called for, which resolution has been quoted in the letter itself. >> >> I think all non-governmental stakeholders should refuse to accept it as an open consultation, and write to the SG/ USG immediately about it. If no changes in the format are forthcoming they may all together even agree not to participate in the consultations at all - not even submitting written contributions, and forgoing the 'one rep speaks for all nongov stakeholders' offer. >> >> On the other hand, if there are any genuine concerns of governments that the format should allow enough speak and discussion time for gov reps, which they may feel does not happen in fully open spaces, we can discuss and take them on board to devise a mutually acceptable format. >> >> Parminder >> > > -- > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IGCBP Online Coordinator > DiploFoundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > The latest from Diplo... > http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 13 08:28:18 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:58:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <3F6B87A0-880A-4822-A960-D095A284ED14@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB59AF7.8020308@paque.net> <3F6B87A0-880A-4822-A960-D095A284ED14@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4CB5A5E2.2070804@itforchange.net> Hi All I did not ask for disengagement, but getting together with other stakeholders to write to SG/USG saying this process is not acceptable, and contrary to both WSIS-TA and to the ECOSOC resolution under which this consultation is being carried out... But when one puts forward strong reservations about a process, possible non-engagement with the particular inappropriate process that is being referred to is obviously an implied threat. A strong combined statement by CS, technical community and business sector would have some force. And then we can also talk to govs who will see our side and sympathise. I am hardly one to advocate disengagement as such with the process of enhanced cooperation. parminder On Wednesday 13 October 2010 05:41 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > I agree with Ginger, a boycott would raise few eyebrows and have > little to no impact. Disengagement doesn't count for much when > they're barely thinking about us in the first place. If anything, it > could be taken as evidence we don't care, or are too weak to even > raise a voice. In a similar vein, in Vilnius I had some IO > secretariat people tell me that the lack of response to ITU's online > "consultation" a couple years ago concerning possible CS participation > therein showed we were disinterested and pretty much irrelevant, hence > no opening of ITU was needed. > > While coordination could be hard for various reasons, IGC might > consider trying to work with the ICC and ISOC on this. We've made > common cause in the past (mostly in WSIS) on process issues concerning > the treatment of non-state actors etc, and any joint effort would > probably resonate much more loudly than CS complaining solo. > > Best, > > Bill > > > On Oct 13, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> In Venezuela it was very obvious that boycotting an election, or a >> process, leaves your 'opponent' with a 'legal' dictatorship. We >> cannot willingly give up our voice. >> >> In our recent poll, the most important issue for the IGC members was >> precisely 'enhanced cooperation', as I reinforced in my opening >> statement at the Vilnius IGF. We must raise our voice with a strong >> statement. >> >> We must also look for agreement/support/enhanced cooperation with >> other non-governmental groups--academia, CS, business, etc. so that >> those who agree make separate and united statements. >> >> This is a pivotal point imho. We must act decisively and in true >> 'enhanced cooperation'. We must work in a way that fosters >> cooperation, with a strong, reinforced--not inundated, valid position. >> >> We need concrete steps to move forward. How are other groups: APC, >> and others working with this issue? >> >> Best, gp >> >> >> >> On 10/13/2010 6:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> Agree that this is a farce. >>> >>> Do we refuse to comment at all and take it to the public sphere, or >>> inundate them with written comments criticizing the approach? >>> >>> --MM >>> >>> *From:* parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:08 AM >>> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> *Subject:* [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation >>> >>> Hi All >>> >>> Find as enclosed an open letter to all stakeholders to participate >>> in what is supposed to be an open consultation on 'enhanced >>> cooperation' in NY on 14th December. >>> >>> However, the process is hardly open. It does not seem to be even as >>> open as many traditional UN activities are. Both the Tunis Agenda, >>> and the CSTD/ ECOSOC resolution (quoted in the letter) speaks of >>> 'enhanced cooperation' itself as involving ' a balanced >>> participation of all stakeholders '. >>> >>> It should be obvious that a consultation on 'enhanced cooperation', >>> EC, (which is different from the process of enhanced cooperation ) >>> should be even more open and participative that even EC itself. In >>> fact it should be more or less, within limits of logistics >>> constraints, completely open, though probably also structured enough >>> that all governments, for instance, do get to speak all they want to >>> (that is what they normally like to ensure/protect, UN style) >>> >>> However, the letter says that non -governmental stakeholders will >>> only be allowed to give written contribution, plus a very tokenistic >>> gesture of allowing just one representative (?? whose rep) to speak >>> during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all non >>> governmental stakeholders (whew!) (in maybe about 5 minutes?). So >>> basically they are calling for an inter-governmental consultation. >>> This is not at all an open consultation, and i think we should not >>> give it legitimacy as such. >>> >>> In fact, the letter clearly speaks of a "consultation with UN member >>> states, Permanent Observers and other inter-governmental >>> organizations to be held on....." >>> >>> So, it is simply not the "open and inclusive consultations involving >>> all member states and other stakeholders....." that the recent >>> ECOSOC resolution called for, which resolution has been quoted in >>> the letter itself. >>> >>> I think all non-governmental stakeholders should refuse to accept it >>> as an open consultation, and write to the SG/ USG immediately about >>> it. If no changes in the format are forthcoming they may all >>> together even agree not to participate in the consultations at all - >>> not even submitting written contributions, and forgoing the 'one rep >>> speaks for all nongov stakeholders' offer. >>> >>> On the other hand, if there are any genuine concerns of governments >>> that the format should allow enough speak and discussion time for >>> gov reps, which they may feel does not happen in fully open spaces, >>> we can discuss and take them on board to devise a mutually >>> acceptable format. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >> >> -- >> >> * >> **Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> *IGCBP Online Coordinator >> DiploFoundation >> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >> >> *The latest from Diplo...* >> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the >> online companion to /An Introduction to Internet Governance, /Diplo's >> publication on IG. Download the book, read the blogs and post your >> comments. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Oct 13 08:35:59 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:35:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <4CB5A5E2.2070804@itforchange.net> References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB59AF7.8020308@paque.net> <3F6B87A0-880A-4822-A960-D095A284ED14@graduateinstitute.ch> <4CB5A5E2.2070804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1CA3F686-B5BD-4856-BA99-2C1C27CD4E50@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Parminder, On Oct 13, 2010, at 2:28 PM, parminder wrote: > Hi All > > I did not ask for disengagement, Ginger and I were responding to Milton's question, "Do we refuse to comment at all and take it to the public sphere, or inundate them with written comments criticizing the approach?" > but getting together with other stakeholders to write to SG/USG saying this process is not acceptable, and contrary to both WSIS-TA and to the ECOSOC resolution under which this consultation is being carried out... But when one puts forward strong reservations about a process, possible non-engagement with the particular inappropriate process that is being referred to is obviously an implied threat. > > A strong combined statement by CS, technical community and business sector would have some force. And then we can also talk to govs who will see our side and sympathise. Agreed, per previous > > I am hardly one to advocate disengagement as such with the process of enhanced cooperation. Wouldn't have thought so. Bill > > > > On Wednesday 13 October 2010 05:41 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> I agree with Ginger, a boycott would raise few eyebrows and have little to no impact. Disengagement doesn't count for much when they're barely thinking about us in the first place. If anything, it could be taken as evidence we don't care, or are too weak to even raise a voice. In a similar vein, in Vilnius I had some IO secretariat people tell me that the lack of response to ITU's online "consultation" a couple years ago concerning possible CS participation therein showed we were disinterested and pretty much irrelevant, hence no opening of ITU was needed. >> >> While coordination could be hard for various reasons, IGC might consider trying to work with the ICC and ISOC on this. We've made common cause in the past (mostly in WSIS) on process issues concerning the treatment of non-state actors etc, and any joint effort would probably resonate much more loudly than CS complaining solo. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> On Oct 13, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> In Venezuela it was very obvious that boycotting an election, or a process, leaves your 'opponent' with a 'legal' dictatorship. We cannot willingly give up our voice. >>> >>> In our recent poll, the most important issue for the IGC members was precisely 'enhanced cooperation', as I reinforced in my opening statement at the Vilnius IGF. We must raise our voice with a strong statement. >>> >>> We must also look for agreement/support/enhanced cooperation with other non-governmental groups--academia, CS, business, etc. so that those who agree make separate and united statements. >>> >>> This is a pivotal point imho. We must act decisively and in true 'enhanced cooperation'. We must work in a way that fosters cooperation, with a strong, reinforced--not inundated, valid position. >>> >>> We need concrete steps to move forward. How are other groups: APC, and others working with this issue? >>> >>> Best, gp >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/13/2010 6:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> >>>> Agree that this is a farce. >>>> Do we refuse to comment at all and take it to the public sphere, or inundate them with written comments criticizing the approach? >>>> --MM >>>> >>>> From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:08 AM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation >>>> >>>> Hi All >>>> >>>> Find as enclosed an open letter to all stakeholders to participate in what is supposed to be an open consultation on 'enhanced cooperation' in NY on 14th December. >>>> >>>> However, the process is hardly open. It does not seem to be even as open as many traditional UN activities are. Both the Tunis Agenda, and the CSTD/ ECOSOC resolution (quoted in the letter) speaks of 'enhanced cooperation' itself as involving ' a balanced participation of all stakeholders '. >>>> >>>> It should be obvious that a consultation on 'enhanced cooperation', EC, (which is different from the process of enhanced cooperation ) should be even more open and participative that even EC itself. In fact it should be more or less, within limits of logistics constraints, completely open, though probably also structured enough that all governments, for instance, do get to speak all they want to (that is what they normally like to ensure/protect, UN style) >>>> >>>> However, the letter says that non -governmental stakeholders will only be allowed to give written contribution, plus a very tokenistic gesture of allowing just one representative (?? whose rep) to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all non governmental stakeholders (whew!) (in maybe about 5 minutes?). So basically they are calling for an inter-governmental consultation. This is not at all an open consultation, and i think we should not give it legitimacy as such. >>>> >>>> In fact, the letter clearly speaks of a "consultation with UN member states, Permanent Observers and other inter-governmental organizations to be held on....." >>>> >>>> So, it is simply not the "open and inclusive consultations involving all member states and other stakeholders....." that the recent ECOSOC resolution called for, which resolution has been quoted in the letter itself. >>>> >>>> I think all non-governmental stakeholders should refuse to accept it as an open consultation, and write to the SG/ USG immediately about it. If no changes in the format are forthcoming they may all together even agree not to participate in the consultations at all - not even submitting written contributions, and forgoing the 'one rep speaks for all nongov stakeholders' offer. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, if there are any genuine concerns of governments that the format should allow enough speak and discussion time for gov reps, which they may feel does not happen in fully open spaces, we can discuss and take them on board to devise a mutually acceptable format. >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>> IGCBP Online Coordinator >>> DiploFoundation >>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >>> The latest from Diplo... >>> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments. >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> *********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> Senior Associate >> Centre for International Governance >> Graduate Institute of International and >> Development Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland >> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >> www.williamdrake.org >> *********************************************************** >> >> *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Oct 13 08:41:57 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:41:57 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF References: <3A941447-3CCE-4A22-824D-A694DDAD8B5F@graduateinstitute.ch> <4CB0A4FC.9080704@gmx.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07263@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF3BF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <87805B6D-6F52-4C1E-AE03-0A48F1BAE68E@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07280@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Bill and others the press release marches more or less what I have heard. The Russian proposal does not get much support. And it is - like always in the ITU - Syria which tries to get things "wrong". As said in previous mails, the ITGU works on a consensus basis and this is cvertainly a safeguard. However to analyze the arguments and the reaction from the various parties is more than an academic excercise. With so many bodies now involved (you can easily add the planned EC consultaitons in NY) it seems to discuss indeed a coordinated approach, which would include also consultaitons with other non-governmental stakeholders. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Gesendet: Mi 13.10.2010 13:54 An: Governance Betreff: Re: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF Hi I haven't had time to follow the Plenipot closely but was just looking at the press section and noticed this: ----- http://www.itu.int/plenipotentiary/2010/newsroom/highlights/oct06.html WSIS Forum meets Internet Governance Forum A proposal by the Russian Federation was put forward to consider whether the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) should become part of the WSIS Forum, as it was suggested that all WSIS outcomes, which include the IGF, should be dealt with in the WSIS Forum. The United States and Norway (on behalf of CEPT) suggested that the IGF should be kept as an independent body and that it retain its "unique" non-binding, bottom-up, non-decisional, multi-stakeholder status. Egypt questioned the rationale for folding the IGF into the WSIS Forum and noted that the authorities responsible for the future of the IGF are the UN General Assembly, Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD). The Chairman of the Working Group of the Plenary concluded that the proposal from the Russian Federation was not relevant to the outcome of PP-10 and that it should be presented to the appropriate bodies of the UN system. In fact, the future of the Internet Governance Forum is scheduled for review by the Second Committee of the UN General Assembly and that review will be completed before the end of the year. ----- So, that's at least one less lousy idea/development to have on our radars.... Bill On Oct 10, 2010, at 11:12 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > 1st, I add my congrats to Izumi and thanks to Rafik and Marilla. > > 2nd, I agree with Wolfgang the Plenipot machinations should be seen in broader context. The likelihood of getting something objectionable agreed to this time around is unlikely. But they'll be back, whether at > next Plenipot or at UNGA or WSIS Forum or...IGF. > a) which gets to main point, how well can IGC manage to broaden its view to simultaneously engage with and monitor whole range of bodies and actions in play in Internet Governance in 2011. IGF helps of course but...we are facing a challenge. > > 3rd,Note that while at the Plenipotentiary level the traditional rules of the 145-year-old ITU game are clearly evident, and political posturing is dominant, at lower levels of course cs has long participated as invited experts often, without the huge or any fees. (eg, see Lee making fun of early ITU proposals to regulate VoIP as unworkable at www.itu.int/osg/spu/ni/iptel/workshop/mcknight.pdf - and I give credit, some at ITU have sense of humor - I've been invited back since ; ). > > 4th, to expect a perpetually broke international organization that governments expect to raise significant income from document sales and sector memberships - to forego that income, or carve out exceptions for individuals and civil society - just ain't happening on any broad scale. At least it hasn't yet, and some of us have been working on cracking this nut for..sigh, decades. We've won some and lost some over the years. > a) and let's remember that ITU is one of ICANN's parents, there at conception, even on the first blind date, so to a certain extent we are dealing with the older authority figure vs the teenager who wants to pretend it never had anything to do with - mom or dad. > b) not that teen is perfect either....but anyway that is discussion for different day, as to what elements of present ITU critique of ICANN GAC are on target, and what not. > > 5th, in ITU case, the real cs representation question is what Avri and Bill bandied about, ie either persuading an existing CS organization to decide to be our house techie org/ITU-T (and/or D) sector member, ie raise the $20k, and commit $X more to support more or less standing representation whether by an organizational rep or by multiple cs individuals who are able to come in under that org's membership. Maybe one joins T and another D....and shares notes and costs? And permits say IGC members - to participate as honorary members of either org?? ; )If/when any of us have $ and time to attend ITU meetings. > Which is time-consuming and expensive....and cs as whole hasn't cared enough about ITU to bother. And foundations and universities yawn if cs types start talking up ITU. > > ISOC and ITU on other hand have had a more or less amicable coordination and division of labor arrangement in place for years, with Harvard's Scott Bradner - certified good guy - the liaison. Maybe it has changed lately, I haven't been paying attention. Not that it's easy but it is ongoing. > > ICANN is free to do the same, and if/when in ITU's house it must like everyone else play by house rules. I have previously suggested it is past time for ICANN if only for self-defense to be on the ground in Geneva, permanently. Or at least appoint a specific liaison a la Scott Bradner...but that is for ICANN to decide. > > Starting a new ITU/cswatch org as Avri and Bill spoke of...is doable too, if folks have time and energy and can find the $. > > 6th, with regard to one of our higher ambitions, of initiating change in ITU-CS relations....given that it is an international treaty organization only certain things are possible....without a change in the treaty. > Therefore, if CS cares enough about ITU to decide (at least within IGC) that ITU reform is an objective, then we are beginning a 4-8 year process, ie through 1-2 Plenipot cycles, and good luck to us. It can be done but it is a slow slog. > > 7th, while I have suggested it is real hard to change ITU, in fact the org is always changing. For example some of us helped past Sec Gens - in our individual capacity of course - kill off the CCIR which had outlived its usefulness. Bill, or maybe Marilyn, if we buy them enough drinks, could tell us near-endless behind the scenes tales of when they helped - or failed at - rewriting ITU agendas... > > 8th, Point is, if we had a specific, plausible plan or suggestion for change in ITU we could pursue it. Over time. Meaning rather than just playing defense we can go on the offensive too. I think Wolfgang's note is a good start on some of the stakes, but recalling we are playing a mutli-dimensional global chess game, we can't just worry about Plenipot, which is too far along this time and unlikely to be subject to outside influence at this point. (If more substantial rumors of bad decisions getting rammed through are proven, then there are ways to undermine that, but at moment we just have a Russian shot across the bow and no surprise.) > > 9th, and I promise i will stop soon, 2011 should indeed be seen as a pivotal year for tipping - IGF, GAID, UNGA, WSIS Forum, ICANN, and who knows even ITU, in one direction or another. Shaping/setting the agenda is our task, meeting locations and timing is just the playing field. (Though I do need to note the ironic twist that moving a WSIS Forum meeting further from Geneva is seen still as making it more ITUish, when one might think just the opposite.) > > In sum, we play our game, across venues, for cs objectives. CS and yeah business interests, in spite of international politics, remain the prime movers in most of these fora, including ITU-T, for which ITU staff play mainly secretarial/support role. So we need first to step back i suggest and decide what our prime objectives are for 2011...and then pass a very heavy load to Izumi and Jeremy to help us execute on. > > Starting with the suggested statement is a good 1st step, and if well done, can be recycled in various ways through the year of agenda setting. > > best, > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2010 5:45 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Klein; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: AW: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF > > Hi Bill and others > > thanks for pointing to the IGF part of the Russian speech. Both together (the attack aginst ICANN & the IGF) look like an integrated strategy where the key idea is to bring the Internet under an intergovernmental mechanism and to kill the concept of "multistakeholderism". In the "Russian model" non-governmental stakeholders will be "invited" only under certain circumstances, which are defined and controlled by governments. This is the old hierarchical top down policy model. This is how the ITU works. This is how the ITU organized its "World Telecommunication Policy Forum" (WTPF). > > Here is my personal story from the WTPF 2009 in Lisbon. There was no free access to the WTPF. As an individual (or NGO) you had to write an application, explaining why you want to participate. This application was checked by an unknown third party. I applied and after a couple of days I got the permission for registration. The three day Forum was organized in a way that the whole first day was filled with official speeches by governmental delegations. There was no debate. There was a speaking order, reserved for governmental speakers only on Day 1. People like me with a NGO-badge had to find a chair in the back of the room. There was a clear seperation between the governmental and the non-governmental rows. On Day 2, when working sessions started, I wanted to make a comment to one of the speeches. But the Chair (my friend Abdullah from Saudi-Arabia who was also member of the WGIG) apologized with friendly words and explained to me that according to the rules of procedures I am not allowed to speak. Non-govenmental speakers could speak only if they are "invited" or of they are "private sector members of the ITU". As a private sector member you have to pay a membership fee of about 20.000.00 Swiss Francs annualy. I said that as an indivdual I can not afford to pay such a price for a three minute statement. He proposed that I should write down my intervention and promised that this will be published on the open part of the ITU website (you know that 80 per cent of ITU documents are not available to the public). > > Another example was the preparatory meeting for the WSIS 2010 Forum, which took place at the ITU Montbrillant building in Geneva in February 2010. The podium which explained the planned programme for the WSIS Forum was filled with representatives of intergovernmental organizations only. It was chaired by Houlin Zhao the now re-elected Deputy Secretary General of the ITU. When I asked him in the public debate about the principle of multistakeholderism and why no representatives of civil society and private sector are on the podium he replied, that UNESCO (which was on the podium) has hundreds of NGOs accredited and ITU has hundreds of private sector members. This is enough to meet the criteria of multistakeholderism. Wow! > > Lisbon April 2009 and Geneva February 2010 rememberd my at the painful discussions on the "Rules of Procedures" during PrepCom1 at WSIS in June 2002.. There was a general impression that with WSIS I, WGIG, WSIS II and the IGF we moved forward towards a truly multistakeholder dialogue, inspired by the Internet Governance definition, as a guiding principle accepted even by the Heads of State. However obviously some governments do not (and/or will not) remember what they signed and secondly they have a special interpretation of the agreed texts. > > On the one hand one could argue that the Russian speech is just one point of view of one ITU member state. Personally I do not see that this position has a chance to get consensus by the whole Plenipotentiary Conference, where all governments have to agree. On the other hand the statement makes clear that the battle of 2005 is not over but has just restarted. > > One scenario could be that the ITU discussion is used by some governments to test out how far they can go in the UNGA discussion on continuation and improvement of the IGF. The "improvement" debate is for 2011 and the decision will be made by the UNGA in November 2011. With other words, a WSIS Forum in May 2011 in New York (is the site already decided?) and an IGF in September 2011 in Nairobi would compete against each other, evaluated then by the governments of the UN member states in November 2011. > > Another target of the Russian initiative could be to prepare the ground for a third WSIS in 2015. The deal in Guadalajara could be that the ITU gives up (for the moment) to becomne a RIR but would get a mandate to organize a 3rd WSIS. Under a WSIS umbrella governments would get another opportunity to work towards a model, where ICANN is pushed into an intergovenrmental framewok. If people are interested into the various ideas they should go back to "model 3" and "model 4" of the WGIG report from 2005. BTW, remember the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 1998 in Minneapolis, when ITU gave up (for the moment) its intention to get the hand over the DNS and IP addresses via the IAHC but got as a compensation the mandate to start the WSIS process. > > No new arguments, no new ideas. Old wine in new bottles. But 2010 is not 2005 and not 1998. We have one billion more Internet users and dozens of more problems (CC, IOT, SN etc.) which have only little to do with the DNS. They call for more multistakeholder dialog and bottom up PDP in an open and transparent environment and not for less. As it was said hundred times in 2005: The political challenges of the 21st century can not be settled with the diplomatic instruments of the 20th century. We have to be innovative and have to create something which is able to manage these challenges. ICANN and IGF is not the end of history. In contrary it is the beginning of a new historical phase. But we have to look and move forward, not backwards. > > What could be done? > > 1. IGC members, in particular from developing countries, should try to contact their national representatives participating in Guadalajara (and in the forthcoming UNGA discussion in the 2nd Committee) to explain them the background of the battle to enhanced their knowledge and understanding of the various dimensions of the issue > > 2. The IGC should work on a broader document on the future of Internet Governance with special parts on "improvement" of ICANN and the IGF. A first version could be presented at the forthcoming November IGF/MAG consultations in Geneva. > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > > > Wolfgang > ________________________________ > > Von: Norbert Klein im Auftrag von Norbert Klein > Gesendet: Sa 09.10.2010 19:23 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF > > > > On 10/09/2010 12:40 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> Dear Bill, >> >> You are definitely pointing a major concern that should have IGC take >> a strong position against as well as raise this issue in the upcoming >> open consultation as well as the CSTD IGF improvements working group. >> Do you deem it feasible that we use this thread to develop a position >> statement from IGC to both the IGF and CSTD against the issue? >> > I really hope something like this will start. > > > Norbert > >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:20 PM, William Drake >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> This is related to the message I just sent concerning the ITU/GAC proposal, but it merits a different thread. The list discussion has all been building off the Kevin Murphy piece Wolfgang circulated. Alas, the article being ICANN-oriented did not bother to take note of another part of the RCC proposal that should be of some concern here. The Russian text includes a section on The Future of the Internet Governance Forum that says, inter alia, >>> >>> "The WSIS Forum 2010 was held in May 2010 in Geneva, and the venue for the next one, in 2011, is the United Nations headquarters in New York. The question of Internet governance is just one of the many questions raised by WSIS, and it would appear logical that IGF should in future be held as part of the WSIS Forum in order for there to be a common platform for all stakeholders seeking to implement WSIS outcomes. This will serve to broaden the audience, particularly within developing countries, and reduce costs for organizers and participants alike. Proposal: To consider IGF as a part of the WSIS Forum in the interests of combining efforts, facilitating participation, especially for developing-country representatives, reducing costs and avoiding duplication of effort." >>> >>> So voila. This isn't exactly news either, I had ITU staffers tell me in Tunis when the IGF was endorsed that "we'll be running this thing in five years." There's always been a contingent of governments, generally the same ones supporting ITU uber ICANN, arguing that ITU should have the IGF; indeed, the Russians said this in Tunis, and insisted on the inclusion in the mandate of those provisions about ITU competence etc. And Toure et al have in the past held up the WTPF, the WSIS Forum, etc as evidence that the ITU does this sort of thing better. All of which harks back to our earlier debate on the WSIS Forum and whether it would be a swell idea to hold it in NYC where UN GA reps could see what a proper UN forum looks like, etc. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Oct 13 09:06:47 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:06:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <34E31C23-391A-458E-A5AC-15553BBF81A2@psg.com> Hi, As I have mentioned often, expecting governments to represent people's interests is yet another comforting fantasy. In some countries at some times, they can represent some of a peoples' interests. This leaves a lot of orphaned interests. But even if government were a perfect vehicle for people's interests as citizen's of a region in the world, they have never represented the full scope of people's interests, especially on something like the Internet, which is a cross border phenomenon with cross-border concerns. Governments represent your body count and your geography, but not necessarily your interests. If we really believed that governments will take care of it all, we should just roll up the whole enterprise of having anyone other than the UN, the ITU and our respective government work on IG and go home and lobby our reps. If governments are adequate for representing the people's interests, then why not support the ITU as the purveyor of all things Internet governance - all the countries participate equally in the ITU and UNESCO, so go home and lobby your government. Obviously, I do not accept this prescription. In terms of ICANN itself and the ALAC/At-Large ICANN has a very interesting multistakeholder matrix design that has those who focus on the specific topics, the supporting organizations (SOs), operating horizontally across those specific topics. And has other people focused on the principles that cut across all of the topics, the advisory committees (ACs), operating vertically across all topics. Each of these dimensions has its multistakeholder composition. In the horizontal dimension of the supporting organization dealing with names, the non commercial stakeholder group is the civil society vehicle dealing with the specific topics of names. In the vertical direction, the ALAC and At-large are the group dealing with civil society concerns and matters of principle across all topics. The ALAC/At-Large is not just 15 people, just as the IGC is not the 2 coordinators. We can all have a rip roaring discussion about whether we like the structure of ALAC/At-Large and we can get into personalties if we really wanted. But I strongly advise against selling the potential of the ALAC/At-Large structure short. Like most things ICANN it is still formative and it struggles against the continued disrespect it gets from within ICANN and without, and yes many in the ALAC/At-Large seems as if they have given up. Then again until a few years ago, the GAC was a joke that no one took seriously, and today it has become a threat in some people's minds. I believe the IGC should be supportive of the ALAC/At-Large and that we should see more of us involved in it and working to make it a strong civil society oriented force inside of ICANN. And I strongly believe they should be the ICANN by-law equals of GAC. I support what McTim has often argued, in addition to participating in the IGC and the IGF and other UN oriented bodies, we should be involving ourselves, in an organized way, in the various IG groups that are making the decisions we care so much about. Many of us are individually involved, but more would be helpful, especially if we were organized and made IGC comments on all (or at least many) of the policy issues they ask for commentary on. But we could also just sit back, throw mud and when things fail say, "I told you so!." a. On 13 Oct 2010, at 06:57, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> >> It seems to me that if one actually believes that governments are merely >> expressions of human sovereignty, that authority derives from the >> consent of the governed, then it would follow that in matters of >> internet governance that corporate and governmental voices should fall >> before the weight of the collective opinion of the community of people >> affected by the internet. > > Right, Karl > This is why I am unenthusiastic about setting up ALAC as a "counterbalance" to GAC. First, because it is unlikely that ALAC can carry that weight; second because we want authority to devolve to people, not a committee of 15 appointed people. Anyway, McTim, the real solution is for governments to become involved directly in bottom up policy formulation in an equal-status process, not to set up _another_ silo like the GAC that is empowered to second-guess, intervene externally or otherwise overrule the bottom up policy making process. > > --MM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ocl at gih.com Wed Oct 13 09:27:34 2010 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:27:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4CB5B3C6.4090407@gih.com> On 12/10/2010 23:01, Karl Auerbach wrote : > It seems to me that if one actually believes that governments are > merely expressions of human sovereignty, that authority derives from > the consent of the governed, then it would follow that in matters of > internet governance that corporate and governmental voices should fall > before the weight of the collective opinion of the community of people > affected by the internet. > > Sure, this may be considered unobtainable fantasy by some, but if we > don't aim at something worth having, they why should we even bother > with the effort? "authority derives from the consent of the governed" In your and my country, perhaps. On a planetary scale, that's a minority. Hence the big hubbub from some governments feeling they need to control this horrible thing called "Internet", which might actually get them to, oh sacrilege, have to be accountable to their citizens at some point in time. And that's unlikely to be happening anytime soon. What we are witnessing is a 19th century organization functioning in the 20th century, trying to control a 21st century Internet. It ain't gonna happen. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Wed Oct 13 09:37:56 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:37:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07280@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <3A941447-3CCE-4A22-824D-A694DDAD8B5F@graduateinstitute.ch> <4CB0A4FC.9080704@gmx.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07263@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF3BF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <87805B6D-6F52-4C1E-AE03-0A48F1BAE68E@graduateinstitute.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07280@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: In my humble opinion, we must have a dialogue in our strong-attended planning strategy approach on what is coming. We can certainly find support from partners who are willing to support our approach. It is desirable that we can have this meeting as soon as possible. Baudouin 2010/10/13, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" : > Hi Bill and others > > the press release marches more or less what I have heard. The Russian > proposal does not get much support. And it is - like always in the ITU - > Syria which tries to get things "wrong". As said in previous mails, the ITGU > works on a consensus basis and this is cvertainly a safeguard. > > However to analyze the arguments and the reaction from the various parties > is more than an academic excercise. With so many bodies now involved (you > can easily add the planned EC consultaitons in NY) it seems to discuss > indeed a coordinated approach, which would include also consultaitons with > other non-governmental stakeholders. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Gesendet: Mi 13.10.2010 13:54 > An: Governance > Betreff: Re: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF > > > > Hi > > I haven't had time to follow the Plenipot closely but was just looking at > the press section and noticed this: > > ----- > > http://www.itu.int/plenipotentiary/2010/newsroom/highlights/oct06.html > > WSIS Forum meets Internet Governance Forum > > A proposal by the Russian Federation was put forward to consider whether the > Internet Governance Forum (IGF) should become part of the WSIS Forum, as it > was suggested that all WSIS outcomes, which include the IGF, should be dealt > with in the WSIS Forum. The United States and Norway (on behalf of CEPT) > suggested that the IGF should be kept as an independent body and that it > retain its "unique" non-binding, bottom-up, non-decisional, > multi-stakeholder status. Egypt questioned the rationale for folding the IGF > into the WSIS Forum and noted that the authorities responsible for the > future of the IGF are the UN General Assembly, Economic and Social Council > (ECOSOC) and the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > (CSTD). > > The Chairman of the Working Group of the Plenary concluded that the proposal > from the Russian Federation was not relevant to the outcome of PP-10 and > that it should be presented to the appropriate bodies of the UN system. In > fact, the future of the Internet Governance Forum is scheduled for review by > the Second Committee of the UN General Assembly and that review will be > completed before the end of the year. > > ----- > > So, that's at least one less lousy idea/development to have on our > radars.... > > Bill > > On Oct 10, 2010, at 11:12 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> 1st, I add my congrats to Izumi and thanks to Rafik and Marilla. >> >> 2nd, I agree with Wolfgang the Plenipot machinations should be seen in >> broader context. The likelihood of getting something objectionable agreed >> to this time around is unlikely. But they'll be back, whether at >> next Plenipot or at UNGA or WSIS Forum or...IGF. >> a) which gets to main point, how well can IGC manage to broaden its view >> to simultaneously engage with and monitor whole range of bodies and >> actions in play in Internet Governance in 2011. IGF helps of course >> but...we are facing a challenge. >> >> 3rd,Note that while at the Plenipotentiary level the traditional rules of >> the 145-year-old ITU game are clearly evident, and political posturing is >> dominant, at lower levels of course cs has long participated as invited >> experts often, without the huge or any fees. (eg, see Lee making fun of >> early ITU proposals to regulate VoIP as unworkable at >> www.itu.int/osg/spu/ni/iptel/workshop/mcknight.pdf - and I give credit, >> some at ITU have sense of humor - I've been invited back since ; ). >> >> 4th, to expect a perpetually broke international organization that >> governments expect to raise significant income from document sales and >> sector memberships - to forego that income, or carve out exceptions for >> individuals and civil society - just ain't happening on any broad scale. >> At least it hasn't yet, and some of us have been working on cracking this >> nut for..sigh, decades. We've won some and lost some over the years. >> a) and let's remember that ITU is one of ICANN's parents, there at >> conception, even on the first blind date, so to a certain extent we are >> dealing with the older authority figure vs the teenager who wants to >> pretend it never had anything to do with - mom or dad. >> b) not that teen is perfect either....but anyway that is discussion for >> different day, as to what elements of present ITU critique of ICANN GAC >> are on target, and what not. >> >> 5th, in ITU case, the real cs representation question is what Avri and >> Bill bandied about, ie either persuading an existing CS organization to >> decide to be our house techie org/ITU-T (and/or D) sector member, ie raise >> the $20k, and commit $X more to support more or less standing >> representation whether by an organizational rep or by multiple cs >> individuals who are able to come in under that org's membership. Maybe one >> joins T and another D....and shares notes and costs? And permits say IGC >> members - to participate as honorary members of either org?? ; )If/when >> any of us have $ and time to attend ITU meetings. >> Which is time-consuming and expensive....and cs as whole hasn't cared >> enough about ITU to bother. And foundations and universities yawn if cs >> types start talking up ITU. >> >> ISOC and ITU on other hand have had a more or less amicable coordination >> and division of labor arrangement in place for years, with Harvard's Scott >> Bradner - certified good guy - the liaison. Maybe it has changed lately, I >> haven't been paying attention. Not that it's easy but it is ongoing. >> >> ICANN is free to do the same, and if/when in ITU's house it must like >> everyone else play by house rules. I have previously suggested it is past >> time for ICANN if only for self-defense to be on the ground in Geneva, >> permanently. Or at least appoint a specific liaison a la Scott >> Bradner...but that is for ICANN to decide. >> >> Starting a new ITU/cswatch org as Avri and Bill spoke of...is doable too, >> if folks have time and energy and can find the $. >> >> 6th, with regard to one of our higher ambitions, of initiating change in >> ITU-CS relations....given that it is an international treaty organization >> only certain things are possible....without a change in the treaty. >> Therefore, if CS cares enough about ITU to decide (at least within IGC) >> that ITU reform is an objective, then we are beginning a 4-8 year process, >> ie through 1-2 Plenipot cycles, and good luck to us. It can be done but >> it is a slow slog. >> >> 7th, while I have suggested it is real hard to change ITU, in fact the org >> is always changing. For example some of us helped past Sec Gens - in our >> individual capacity of course - kill off the CCIR which had outlived its >> usefulness. Bill, or maybe Marilyn, if we buy them enough drinks, could >> tell us near-endless behind the scenes tales of when they helped - or >> failed at - rewriting ITU agendas... >> >> 8th, Point is, if we had a specific, plausible plan or suggestion for >> change in ITU we could pursue it. Over time. Meaning rather than just >> playing defense we can go on the offensive too. I think Wolfgang's note is >> a good start on some of the stakes, but recalling we are playing a >> mutli-dimensional global chess game, we can't just worry about Plenipot, >> which is too far along this time and unlikely to be subject to outside >> influence at this point. (If more substantial rumors of bad decisions >> getting rammed through are proven, then there are ways to undermine that, >> but at moment we just have a Russian shot across the bow and no surprise.) >> >> 9th, and I promise i will stop soon, 2011 should indeed be seen as a >> pivotal year for tipping - IGF, GAID, UNGA, WSIS Forum, ICANN, and who >> knows even ITU, in one direction or another. Shaping/setting the agenda >> is our task, meeting locations and timing is just the playing field. >> (Though I do need to note the ironic twist that moving a WSIS Forum >> meeting further from Geneva is seen still as making it more ITUish, when >> one might think just the opposite.) >> >> In sum, we play our game, across venues, for cs objectives. CS and yeah >> business interests, in spite of international politics, remain the prime >> movers in most of these fora, including ITU-T, for which ITU staff play >> mainly secretarial/support role. So we need first to step back i suggest >> and decide what our prime objectives are for 2011...and then pass a very >> heavy load to Izumi and Jeremy to help us execute on. >> >> Starting with the suggested statement is a good 1st step, and if well >> done, can be recycled in various ways through the year of agenda setting. >> >> best, >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >> Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2010 5:45 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Klein; governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: AW: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF >> >> Hi Bill and others >> >> thanks for pointing to the IGF part of the Russian speech. Both together >> (the attack aginst ICANN & the IGF) look like an integrated strategy where >> the key idea is to bring the Internet under an intergovernmental mechanism >> and to kill the concept of "multistakeholderism". In the "Russian model" >> non-governmental stakeholders will be "invited" only under certain >> circumstances, which are defined and controlled by governments. This is >> the old hierarchical top down policy model. This is how the ITU works. >> This is how the ITU organized its "World Telecommunication Policy Forum" >> (WTPF). >> >> Here is my personal story from the WTPF 2009 in Lisbon. There was no free >> access to the WTPF. As an individual (or NGO) you had to write an >> application, explaining why you want to participate. This application was >> checked by an unknown third party. I applied and after a couple of days I >> got the permission for registration. The three day Forum was organized in >> a way that the whole first day was filled with official speeches by >> governmental delegations. There was no debate. There was a speaking order, >> reserved for governmental speakers only on Day 1. People like me with a >> NGO-badge had to find a chair in the back of the room. There was a clear >> seperation between the governmental and the non-governmental rows. On Day >> 2, when working sessions started, I wanted to make a comment to one of the >> speeches. But the Chair (my friend Abdullah from Saudi-Arabia who was also >> member of the WGIG) apologized with friendly words and explained to me >> that according to the rules of procedures I am not allowed to speak. >> Non-govenmental speakers could speak only if they are "invited" or of they >> are "private sector members of the ITU". As a private sector member you >> have to pay a membership fee of about 20.000.00 Swiss Francs annualy. I >> said that as an indivdual I can not afford to pay such a price for a three >> minute statement. He proposed that I should write down my intervention and >> promised that this will be published on the open part of the ITU website >> (you know that 80 per cent of ITU documents are not available to the >> public). >> >> Another example was the preparatory meeting for the WSIS 2010 Forum, which >> took place at the ITU Montbrillant building in Geneva in February 2010. >> The podium which explained the planned programme for the WSIS Forum was >> filled with representatives of intergovernmental organizations only. It >> was chaired by Houlin Zhao the now re-elected Deputy Secretary General of >> the ITU. When I asked him in the public debate about the principle of >> multistakeholderism and why no representatives of civil society and >> private sector are on the podium he replied, that UNESCO (which was on the >> podium) has hundreds of NGOs accredited and ITU has hundreds of private >> sector members. This is enough to meet the criteria of >> multistakeholderism. Wow! >> >> Lisbon April 2009 and Geneva February 2010 rememberd my at the painful >> discussions on the "Rules of Procedures" during PrepCom1 at WSIS in June >> 2002.. There was a general impression that with WSIS I, WGIG, WSIS II and >> the IGF we moved forward towards a truly multistakeholder dialogue, >> inspired by the Internet Governance definition, as a guiding principle >> accepted even by the Heads of State. However obviously some governments do >> not (and/or will not) remember what they signed and secondly they have a >> special interpretation of the agreed texts. >> >> On the one hand one could argue that the Russian speech is just one point >> of view of one ITU member state. Personally I do not see that this >> position has a chance to get consensus by the whole Plenipotentiary >> Conference, where all governments have to agree. On the other hand the >> statement makes clear that the battle of 2005 is not over but has just >> restarted. >> >> One scenario could be that the ITU discussion is used by some governments >> to test out how far they can go in the UNGA discussion on continuation and >> improvement of the IGF. The "improvement" debate is for 2011 and the >> decision will be made by the UNGA in November 2011. With other words, a >> WSIS Forum in May 2011 in New York (is the site already decided?) and an >> IGF in September 2011 in Nairobi would compete against each other, >> evaluated then by the governments of the UN member states in November >> 2011. >> >> Another target of the Russian initiative could be to prepare the ground >> for a third WSIS in 2015. The deal in Guadalajara could be that the ITU >> gives up (for the moment) to becomne a RIR but would get a mandate to >> organize a 3rd WSIS. Under a WSIS umbrella governments would get another >> opportunity to work towards a model, where ICANN is pushed into an >> intergovenrmental framewok. If people are interested into the various >> ideas they should go back to "model 3" and "model 4" of the WGIG report >> from 2005. BTW, remember the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 1998 in >> Minneapolis, when ITU gave up (for the moment) its intention to get the >> hand over the DNS and IP addresses via the IAHC but got as a compensation >> the mandate to start the WSIS process. >> >> No new arguments, no new ideas. Old wine in new bottles. But 2010 is not >> 2005 and not 1998. We have one billion more Internet users and dozens of >> more problems (CC, IOT, SN etc.) which have only little to do with the >> DNS. They call for more multistakeholder dialog and bottom up PDP in an >> open and transparent environment and not for less. As it was said hundred >> times in 2005: The political challenges of the 21st century can not be >> settled with the diplomatic instruments of the 20th century. We have to be >> innovative and have to create something which is able to manage these >> challenges. ICANN and IGF is not the end of history. In contrary it is the >> beginning of a new historical phase. But we have to look and move forward, >> not backwards. >> >> What could be done? >> >> 1. IGC members, in particular from developing countries, should try to >> contact their national representatives participating in Guadalajara (and >> in the forthcoming UNGA discussion in the 2nd Committee) to explain them >> the background of the battle to enhanced their knowledge and understanding >> of the various dimensions of the issue >> >> 2. The IGC should work on a broader document on the future of Internet >> Governance with special parts on "improvement" of ICANN and the IGF. A >> first version could be presented at the forthcoming November IGF/MAG >> consultations in Geneva. >> >> Best wishes >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> Wolfgang >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: Norbert Klein im Auftrag von Norbert Klein >> Gesendet: Sa 09.10.2010 19:23 >> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Betreff: Re: [governance] A Group of ITU Members vs. the IGF >> >> >> >> On 10/09/2010 12:40 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>> Dear Bill, >>> >>> You are definitely pointing a major concern that should have IGC take >>> a strong position against as well as raise this issue in the upcoming >>> open consultation as well as the CSTD IGF improvements working group. >>> Do you deem it feasible that we use this thread to develop a position >>> statement from IGC to both the IGF and CSTD against the issue? >>> >> I really hope something like this will start. >> >> >> Norbert >> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:20 PM, William Drake >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> This is related to the message I just sent concerning the ITU/GAC >>>> proposal, but it merits a different thread. The list discussion has all >>>> been building off the Kevin Murphy piece Wolfgang circulated. Alas, the >>>> article being ICANN-oriented did not bother to take note of another part >>>> of the RCC proposal that should be of some concern here. The Russian >>>> text includes a section on The Future of the Internet Governance Forum >>>> that says, inter alia, >>>> >>>> "The WSIS Forum 2010 was held in May 2010 in Geneva, and the venue for >>>> the next one, in 2011, is the United Nations headquarters in New York. >>>> The question of Internet governance is just one of the many questions >>>> raised by WSIS, and it would appear logical that IGF should in future be >>>> held as part of the WSIS Forum in order for there to be a common >>>> platform for all stakeholders seeking to implement WSIS outcomes. This >>>> will serve to broaden the audience, particularly within developing >>>> countries, and reduce costs for organizers and participants alike. >>>> Proposal: To consider IGF as a part of the WSIS Forum in the interests >>>> of combining efforts, facilitating participation, especially for >>>> developing-country representatives, reducing costs and avoiding >>>> duplication of effort." >>>> >>>> So voila. This isn't exactly news either, I had ITU staffers tell me in >>>> Tunis when the IGF was endorsed that "we'll be running this thing in >>>> five years." There's always been a contingent of governments, >>>> generally the same ones supporting ITU uber ICANN, arguing that ITU >>>> should have the IGF; indeed, the Russians said this in Tunis, and >>>> insisted on the inclusion in the mandate of those provisions about ITU >>>> competence etc. And Toure et al have in the past held up the WTPF, the >>>> WSIS Forum, etc as evidence that the ITU does this sort of thing better. >>>> All of which harks back to our earlier debate on the WSIS Forum and >>>> whether it would be a swell idea to hold it in NYC where UN GA reps >>>> could see what a proper UN forum looks like, etc. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Bill > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Wed Oct 13 10:25:05 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:25:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Oct 13, 2010, at 6:57 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Anyway, McTim, the real solution is for governments to become involved directly in bottom up policy formulation in an equal-status process, not to set up _another_ silo like the GAC that is empowered to second-guess, intervene externally or otherwise overrule the bottom up policy making process. The Regional Internet Registries make use of this model for policy formation, and I can say that it works quite well in the ARIN region. We have active involvement of government agencies from across the region who discuss the relative merits and issues with proposed policy just as any other participants, and while sometimes government representatives are constrained by their own processes to reading pre-prepared comments into specific policy discussions, it still results in very informative deliberations. The real strength of this approach is that it leads to better understanding and shared sense of outcome, rather than having hardened positions from multiple groups all having to be somehow accommodated afterwards by a "Board level" decision process. Two additional details that have made this multi-stakeholder-including-government approach successful is insuring that you have an strong educational outreach to government folks to bring them up-to-speed on the particular policies being discussed prior to the meeting, and secondly making sure that it's clear to all that governments have their own independent processes for determining public policy requirements, and hence always have the freedom to create laws or regulation after the fact if the community adopted policy doesn't meet their particular needs. /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 isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Oct 13 11:12:02 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:42:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <4CB5B3C6.4090407@gih.com> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <4CB5B3C6.4090407@gih.com> Message-ID: Dear Olivier, On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > On 12/10/2010 23:01, Karl Auerbach wrote : > > It seems to me that if one actually believes that governments are > > merely expressions of human sovereignty, that authority derives from > > the consent of the governed, then it would follow that in matters of > > internet governance that corporate and governmental voices should fall > > before the weight of the collective opinion of the community of people > > affected by the internet. > > > > Sure, this may be considered unobtainable fantasy by some, but if we > > don't aim at something worth having, they why should we even bother > > with the effort? > > "authority derives from the consent of the governed" > > In your and my country, perhaps. On a planetary scale, that's a > minority. Hence the big hubbub from some governments feeling they need > to control this horrible thing called "Internet", which might actually > get them to, oh sacrilege, have to be accountable to their citizens at > some point in time. And that's unlikely to be happening anytime soon. > > What we are witnessing is a 19th century organization functioning in the > 20th century, trying to control a 21st century Internet. > It ain't gonna happen. > Inspiring assertion. We are underrating the methods and means of Governments and mega business here. The Civil Society and International Organizations make a lot of 'noise' at the Internet Governance Forum, in social and traditional media, and in mailing lists and conferences. Governments appear to choose not to take note of the voices; the political agenda, concerted or in bit and pieces, is making ample progress. If we compile a list of politically initiated changes during the last 5 years and measure the degree of openness/freedom of the Internet today in comparison to what it was 5 years ago, we will find noticeable changes and these are changes are just a beginning. Unless the positive forces are first insulated from the influences of negative forces, and then work in concerted collaboration, negative changes will continue to be effected everyday, oblivious to the views of the civil society. If these negative changes are allowed to happen one after another, in one country after another, soon it will be a point of nearly irreversible damage to the free and open Internet. The core problem is that it is still difficult for Governments and particular business interests to ACCEPT the Internet as what it is. We need to do a lot of work on this, perhaps with the help of the rare Nations / Regions that see a value in preserving the Internet. Sivasubramanian M > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 13 14:22:36 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:22:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <3F6B87A0-880A-4822-A960-D095A284ED14@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB59AF7.8020308@paque.net>,<3F6B87A0-880A-4822-A960-D095A284ED14@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB67FDB9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Sounds good to me. My suggestion of boycott was based on my perception that WSIS followup is pretty irrelevant to begin with but am happy to roll with people who want to openly confront and criticize the approach ________________________________________ From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 8:11 AM To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation Hi I agree with Ginger, a boycott would raise few eyebrows and have little to no impact. Disengagement doesn't count for much when they're barely thinking about us in the first place. If anything, it could be taken as evidence we don't care, or are too weak to even raise a voice. In a similar vein, in Vilnius I had some IO secretariat people tell me that the lack of response to ITU's online "consultation" a couple years ago concerning possible CS participation therein showed we were disinterested and pretty much irrelevant, hence no opening of ITU was needed. While coordination could be hard for various reasons, IGC might consider trying to work with the ICC and ISOC on this. We've made common cause in the past (mostly in WSIS) on process issues concerning the treatment of non-state actors etc, and any joint effort would probably resonate much more loudly than CS complaining solo. Best, Bill On Oct 13, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: In Venezuela it was very obvious that boycotting an election, or a process, leaves your 'opponent' with a 'legal' dictatorship. We cannot willingly give up our voice. In our recent poll, the most important issue for the IGC members was precisely 'enhanced cooperation', as I reinforced in my opening statement at the Vilnius IGF. We must raise our voice with a strong statement. We must also look for agreement/support/enhanced cooperation with other non-governmental groups--academia, CS, business, etc. so that those who agree make separate and united statements. This is a pivotal point imho. We must act decisively and in true 'enhanced cooperation'. We must work in a way that fosters cooperation, with a strong, reinforced--not inundated, valid position. We need concrete steps to move forward. How are other groups: APC, and others working with this issue? Best, gp On 10/13/2010 6:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: Agree that this is a farce. Do we refuse to comment at all and take it to the public sphere, or inundate them with written comments criticizing the approach? --MM From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:08 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation Hi All Find as enclosed an open letter to all stakeholders to participate in what is supposed to be an open consultation on 'enhanced cooperation' in NY on 14th December. However, the process is hardly open. It does not seem to be even as open as many traditional UN activities are. Both the Tunis Agenda, and the CSTD/ ECOSOC resolution (quoted in the letter) speaks of 'enhanced cooperation' itself as involving ' a balanced participation of all stakeholders '. It should be obvious that a consultation on 'enhanced cooperation', EC, (which is different from the process of enhanced cooperation ) should be even more open and participative that even EC itself. In fact it should be more or less, within limits of logistics constraints, completely open, though probably also structured enough that all governments, for instance, do get to speak all they want to (that is what they normally like to ensure/protect, UN style) However, the letter says that non -governmental stakeholders will only be allowed to give written contribution, plus a very tokenistic gesture of allowing just one representative (?? whose rep) to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all non governmental stakeholders (whew!) (in maybe about 5 minutes?). So basically they are calling for an inter-governmental consultation. This is not at all an open consultation, and i think we should not give it legitimacy as such. In fact, the letter clearly speaks of a "consultation with UN member states, Permanent Observers and other inter-governmental organizations to be held on....." So, it is simply not the "open and inclusive consultations involving all member states and other stakeholders....." that the recent ECOSOC resolution called for, which resolution has been quoted in the letter itself. I think all non-governmental stakeholders should refuse to accept it as an open consultation, and write to the SG/ USG immediately about it. If no changes in the format are forthcoming they may all together even agree not to participate in the consultations at all - not even submitting written contributions, and forgoing the 'one rep speaks for all nongov stakeholders' offer. On the other hand, if there are any genuine concerns of governments that the format should allow enough speak and discussion time for gov reps, which they may feel does not happen in fully open spaces, we can discuss and take them on board to devise a mutually acceptable format. Parminder -- Ginger (Virginia) Paque IGCBP Online Coordinator DiploFoundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig The latest from Diplo... http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Wed Oct 13 14:49:06 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:49:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <34E31C23-391A-458E-A5AC-15553BBF81A2@psg.com> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<34E31C23-391A-458E-A5AC-15553BBF81A2@psg.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB67FDBA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > ICANN has a very interesting multistakeholder matrix design that has those > who focus on the specific topics, the supporting organizations (SOs), operating > horizontally across those specific topics. And has other people focused on > the principles that cut across all of the topics, the advisory committees (ACs), > operating vertically across all topics. Each of these dimensions ...are basically irrelevant as long as the Board is able to exercise unrestrained, unilateral authority > multistakeholder composition. In the horizontal dimension of the supporting > organization dealing with names, the non commercial stakeholder group is > the civil society vehicle dealing with the specific topics of names. In the vertical > direction, the ALAC and At-large are the group dealing with civil society > concerns and matters of principle across all topics. That is indeed the way it is supposed to be > The ALAC/At-Large is not just 15 people, just as the IGC is not the 2 > coordinators. IGC coordinators are elected by any and all IGC members. ALAC selection is not quiite so democratic. > We can all have a rip roaring discussion about whether we like the structure > of ALAC/At-Large and we can get into personalties if we really wanted. But I > strongly advise against selling the potential of the ALAC/At-Large structure short. The At Large contains many good people and is better than nothing. And as you suggest it is a misdirection of our efforts to squabble over its structure or personalities when there are bigger fish to fry. But still, no one committed to the rights and autonomy of the individual internet user can overlook the fact that ALAC/At Large is, in a relative sense, a pathetic come-down from its original status as a true global membership with direct, democratic voting rights over the Board. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 13 16:05:10 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 06:05:10 +1000 Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <3F6B87A0-880A-4822-A960-D095A284ED14@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Agree with all the comments we should seek a joint icc/igc/isoc response if possible From: William Drake Reply-To: , William Drake Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:11:27 +0200 To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation Hi I agree with Ginger, a boycott would raise few eyebrows and have little to no impact. Disengagement doesn't count for much when they're barely thinking about us in the first place. If anything, it could be taken as evidence we don't care, or are too weak to even raise a voice. In a similar vein, in Vilnius I had some IO secretariat people tell me that the lack of response to ITU's online "consultation" a couple years ago concerning possible CS participation therein showed we were disinterested and pretty much irrelevant, hence no opening of ITU was needed. While coordination could be hard for various reasons, IGC might consider trying to work with the ICC and ISOC on this. We've made common cause in the past (mostly in WSIS) on process issues concerning the treatment of non-state actors etc, and any joint effort would probably resonate much more loudly than CS complaining solo. Best, Bill On Oct 13, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > In Venezuela it was very obvious that boycotting an election, or a process, > leaves your 'opponent' with a 'legal' dictatorship. We cannot willingly give > up our voice. > > In our recent poll, the most important issue for the IGC members was > precisely 'enhanced cooperation', as I reinforced in my opening statement at > the Vilnius IGF. We must raise our voice with a strong statement. > > We must also look for agreement/support/enhanced cooperation with other > non-governmental groups--academia, CS, business, etc. so that those who agree > make separate and united statements. > > This is a pivotal point imho. We must act decisively and in true 'enhanced > cooperation'. We must work in a way that fosters cooperation, with a strong, > reinforced--not inundated, valid position. > > We need concrete steps to move forward. How are other groups: APC, and others > working with this issue? > > Best, gp > > > > On 10/13/2010 6:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Agree that this is a farce. >> Do we refuse to comment at all and take it to the public sphere, or inundate >> them with written comments criticizing the approach? >> --MM >> >> >> >> >> From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:08 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation >> >> >> >> Hi All >> >> Find as enclosed an open letter to all stakeholders to participate in what >> is supposed to be an open consultation on 'enhanced cooperation' in NY on >> 14th December. >> >> However, the process is hardly open. It does not seem to be even as open as >> many traditional UN activities are. Both the Tunis Agenda, and the CSTD/ >> ECOSOC resolution (quoted in the letter) speaks of 'enhanced cooperation' >> itself as involving ' a balanced participation of all stakeholders '. >> >> It should be obvious that a consultation on 'enhanced cooperation', EC, >> (which is different from the process of enhanced cooperation ) should be even >> more open and participative that even EC itself. In fact it should be more or >> less, within limits of logistics constraints, completely open, though >> probably also structured enough that all governments, for instance, do get to >> speak all they want to (that is what they normally like to ensure/protect, UN >> style) >> >> However, the letter says that non -governmental stakeholders will only be >> allowed to give written contribution, plus a very tokenistic gesture of >> allowing just one representative (?? whose rep) to speak during the >> consultations to summarize the contributions of all non governmental >> stakeholders (whew!) (in maybe about 5 minutes?). So basically they are >> calling for an inter-governmental consultation. This is not at all an open >> consultation, and i think we should not give it legitimacy as such. >> >> In fact, the letter clearly speaks of a "consultation with UN member states, >> Permanent Observers and other inter-governmental organizations to be held >> on....." >> >> So, it is simply not the "open and inclusive consultations involving all >> member states and other stakeholders....." that the recent ECOSOC resolution >> called for, which resolution has been quoted in the letter itself. >> >> I think all non-governmental stakeholders should refuse to accept it as an >> open consultation, and write to the SG/ USG immediately about it. If no >> changes in the format are forthcoming they may all together even agree not to >> participate in the consultations at all - not even submitting written >> contributions, and forgoing the 'one rep speaks for all nongov stakeholders' >> offer. >> >> On the other hand, if there are any genuine concerns of governments that the >> format should allow enough speak and discussion time for gov reps, which they >> may feel does not happen in fully open spaces, we can discuss and take them >> on board to devise a mutually acceptable format. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> > > > -- > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IGCBP Online Coordinator > DiploFoundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > The latest from Diplo... > http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online > companion to An Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on > IG. Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Wed Oct 13 15:21:33 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:21:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5BD717F9-AF5C-40A7-900E-D1563A9DA03C@psg.com> Hi, If I remember from WSIS days, the joint stmts always had the most kick. And it does seem like we may be regressing to that WSIS existence. a. On 13 Oct 2010, at 16:05, Ian Peter wrote: > Agree with all the comments we should seek a joint icc/igc/isoc response if possible > > > > > From: William Drake > Reply-To: , William Drake > Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:11:27 +0200 > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation > > Hi > > I agree with Ginger, a boycott would raise few eyebrows and have little to no impact. Disengagement doesn't count for much when they're barely thinking about us in the first place. If anything, it could be taken as evidence we don't care, or are too weak to even raise a voice. In a similar vein, in Vilnius I had some IO secretariat people tell me that the lack of response to ITU's online "consultation" a couple years ago concerning possible CS participation therein showed we were disinterested and pretty much irrelevant, hence no opening of ITU was needed. > > While coordination could be hard for various reasons, IGC might consider trying to work with the ICC and ISOC on this. We've made common cause in the past (mostly in WSIS) on process issues concerning the treatment of non-state actors etc, and any joint effort would probably resonate much more loudly than CS complaining solo. > > Best, > > Bill > > > On Oct 13, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> In Venezuela it was very obvious that boycotting an election, or a process, leaves your 'opponent' with a 'legal' dictatorship. We cannot willingly give up our voice. >> >> In our recent poll, the most important issue for the IGC members was precisely 'enhanced cooperation', as I reinforced in my opening statement at the Vilnius IGF. We must raise our voice with a strong statement. >> >> We must also look for agreement/support/enhanced cooperation with other non-governmental groups--academia, CS, business, etc. so that those who agree make separate and united statements. >> >> This is a pivotal point imho. We must act decisively and in true 'enhanced cooperation'. We must work in a way that fosters cooperation, with a strong, reinforced--not inundated, valid position. >> >> We need concrete steps to move forward. How are other groups: APC, and others working with this issue? >> >> Best, gp >> >> >> >> On 10/13/2010 6:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> Agree that this is a farce. >>> Do we refuse to comment at all and take it to the public sphere, or inundate them with written comments criticizing the approach? >>> --MM >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:08 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi All >>> >>> Find as enclosed an open letter to all stakeholders to participate in what is supposed to be an open consultation on 'enhanced cooperation' in NY on 14th December. >>> >>> However, the process is hardly open. It does not seem to be even as open as many traditional UN activities are. Both the Tunis Agenda, and the CSTD/ ECOSOC resolution (quoted in the letter) speaks of 'enhanced cooperation' itself as involving ' a balanced participation of all stakeholders '. >>> >>> It should be obvious that a consultation on 'enhanced cooperation', EC, (which is different from the process of enhanced cooperation ) should be even more open and participative that even EC itself. In fact it should be more or less, within limits of logistics constraints, completely open, though probably also structured enough that all governments, for instance, do get to speak all they want to (that is what they normally like to ensure/protect, UN style) >>> >>> However, the letter says that non -governmental stakeholders will only be allowed to give written contribution, plus a very tokenistic gesture of allowing just one representative (?? whose rep) to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all non governmental stakeholders (whew!) (in maybe about 5 minutes?). So basically they are calling for an inter-governmental consultation. This is not at all an open consultation, and i think we should not give it legitimacy as such. >>> >>> In fact, the letter clearly speaks of a "consultation with UN member states, Permanent Observers and other inter-governmental organizations to be held on....." >>> >>> So, it is simply not the "open and inclusive consultations involving all member states and other stakeholders....." that the recent ECOSOC resolution called for, which resolution has been quoted in the letter itself. >>> >>> I think all non-governmental stakeholders should refuse to accept it as an open consultation, and write to the SG/ USG immediately about it. If no changes in the format are forthcoming they may all together even agree not to participate in the consultations at all - not even submitting written contributions, and forgoing the 'one rep speaks for all nongov stakeholders' offer. >>> >>> On the other hand, if there are any genuine concerns of governments that the format should allow enough speak and discussion time for gov reps, which they may feel does not happen in fully open spaces, we can discuss and take them on board to devise a mutually acceptable format. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> IGCBP Online Coordinator >> DiploFoundation >> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >> >> The latest from Diplo... >> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 13 16:48:11 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 06:48:11 +1000 Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: And perhaps accompanied by a joint statement not to attend or participate under these terms? From: Ian Peter Reply-To: , Ian Peter Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 06:05:10 +1000 To: , William Drake Subject: Re: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation Agree with all the comments we should seek a joint icc/igc/isoc response if possible From: William Drake Reply-To: , William Drake Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:11:27 +0200 To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation Hi I agree with Ginger, a boycott would raise few eyebrows and have little to no impact. Disengagement doesn't count for much when they're barely thinking about us in the first place. If anything, it could be taken as evidence we don't care, or are too weak to even raise a voice. In a similar vein, in Vilnius I had some IO secretariat people tell me that the lack of response to ITU's online "consultation" a couple years ago concerning possible CS participation therein showed we were disinterested and pretty much irrelevant, hence no opening of ITU was needed. While coordination could be hard for various reasons, IGC might consider trying to work with the ICC and ISOC on this. We've made common cause in the past (mostly in WSIS) on process issues concerning the treatment of non-state actors etc, and any joint effort would probably resonate much more loudly than CS complaining solo. Best, Bill On Oct 13, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > In Venezuela it was very obvious that boycotting an election, or a process, > leaves your 'opponent' with a 'legal' dictatorship. We cannot willingly give > up our voice. > > In our recent poll, the most important issue for the IGC members was > precisely 'enhanced cooperation', as I reinforced in my opening statement at > the Vilnius IGF. We must raise our voice with a strong statement. > > We must also look for agreement/support/enhanced cooperation with other > non-governmental groups--academia, CS, business, etc. so that those who agree > make separate and united statements. > > This is a pivotal point imho. We must act decisively and in true 'enhanced > cooperation'. We must work in a way that fosters cooperation, with a strong, > reinforced--not inundated, valid position. > > We need concrete steps to move forward. How are other groups: APC, and others > working with this issue? > > Best, gp > > > > On 10/13/2010 6:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Agree that this is a farce. >> Do we refuse to comment at all and take it to the public sphere, or inundate >> them with written comments criticizing the approach? >> --MM >> >> >> >> >> From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:08 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation >> >> >> >> Hi All >> >> Find as enclosed an open letter to all stakeholders to participate in what >> is supposed to be an open consultation on 'enhanced cooperation' in NY on >> 14th December. >> >> However, the process is hardly open. It does not seem to be even as open as >> many traditional UN activities are. Both the Tunis Agenda, and the CSTD/ >> ECOSOC resolution (quoted in the letter) speaks of 'enhanced cooperation' >> itself as involving ' a balanced participation of all stakeholders '. >> >> It should be obvious that a consultation on 'enhanced cooperation', EC, >> (which is different from the process of enhanced cooperation ) should be even >> more open and participative that even EC itself. In fact it should be more or >> less, within limits of logistics constraints, completely open, though >> probably also structured enough that all governments, for instance, do get to >> speak all they want to (that is what they normally like to ensure/protect, UN >> style) >> >> However, the letter says that non -governmental stakeholders will only be >> allowed to give written contribution, plus a very tokenistic gesture of >> allowing just one representative (?? whose rep) to speak during the >> consultations to summarize the contributions of all non governmental >> stakeholders (whew!) (in maybe about 5 minutes?). So basically they are >> calling for an inter-governmental consultation. This is not at all an open >> consultation, and i think we should not give it legitimacy as such. >> >> In fact, the letter clearly speaks of a "consultation with UN member states, >> Permanent Observers and other inter-governmental organizations to be held >> on....." >> >> So, it is simply not the "open and inclusive consultations involving all >> member states and other stakeholders....." that the recent ECOSOC resolution >> called for, which resolution has been quoted in the letter itself. >> >> I think all non-governmental stakeholders should refuse to accept it as an >> open consultation, and write to the SG/ USG immediately about it. If no >> changes in the format are forthcoming they may all together even agree not to >> participate in the consultations at all - not even submitting written >> contributions, and forgoing the 'one rep speaks for all nongov stakeholders' >> offer. >> >> On the other hand, if there are any genuine concerns of governments that the >> format should allow enough speak and discussion time for gov reps, which they >> may feel does not happen in fully open spaces, we can discuss and take them >> on board to devise a mutually acceptable format. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> > > > -- > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IGCBP Online Coordinator > DiploFoundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > The latest from Diplo... > http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online > companion to An Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on > IG. Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Wed Oct 13 16:25:57 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:25:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I think if you can get someone into the room, you get someone into the room. There is more that can be done than just making formal statements. And often being in the room is critical. E.g. It allows you to pass notes to your favorite contact from a national delegation. It allows you to join in the coffee chatter during breaks. Which reminds me, if we are back to this state of affairs, people have to start looking at getting into their national delegations again. This was a powerful aid to CS during WSIS when only delegations were allowed into some rooms. Having the right colored badge can be critical. All the memories and tricks learned in the bad old days come flooding back. Ouch! And yes, we should find some way to set up a parallel meeting in NYC. Perhaps someone local to city with resources, i mean rooms, can help make that possible. a. On 13 Oct 2010, at 16:48, Ian Peter wrote: > And perhaps accompanied by a joint statement not to attend or participate under these terms? > > > > > From: Ian Peter > Reply-To: , Ian Peter > Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 06:05:10 +1000 > To: , William Drake > Subject: Re: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation > > Agree with all the comments we should seek a joint icc/igc/isoc response if possible > > > > > From: William Drake > Reply-To: , William Drake > Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:11:27 +0200 > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation > > Hi > > I agree with Ginger, a boycott would raise few eyebrows and have little to no impact. Disengagement doesn't count for much when they're barely thinking about us in the first place. If anything, it could be taken as evidence we don't care, or are too weak to even raise a voice. In a similar vein, in Vilnius I had some IO secretariat people tell me that the lack of response to ITU's online "consultation" a couple years ago concerning possible CS participation therein showed we were disinterested and pretty much irrelevant, hence no opening of ITU was needed. > > While coordination could be hard for various reasons, IGC might consider trying to work with the ICC and ISOC on this. We've made common cause in the past (mostly in WSIS) on process issues concerning the treatment of non-state actors etc, and any joint effort would probably resonate much more loudly than CS complaining solo. > > Best, > > Bill > > > On Oct 13, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> In Venezuela it was very obvious that boycotting an election, or a process, leaves your 'opponent' with a 'legal' dictatorship. We cannot willingly give up our voice. >> >> In our recent poll, the most important issue for the IGC members was precisely 'enhanced cooperation', as I reinforced in my opening statement at the Vilnius IGF. We must raise our voice with a strong statement. >> >> We must also look for agreement/support/enhanced cooperation with other non-governmental groups--academia, CS, business, etc. so that those who agree make separate and united statements. >> >> This is a pivotal point imho. We must act decisively and in true 'enhanced cooperation'. We must work in a way that fosters cooperation, with a strong, reinforced--not inundated, valid position. >> >> We need concrete steps to move forward. How are other groups: APC, and others working with this issue? >> >> Best, gp >> >> >> >> On 10/13/2010 6:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> Agree that this is a farce. >>> Do we refuse to comment at all and take it to the public sphere, or inundate them with written comments criticizing the approach? >>> --MM >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:08 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi All >>> >>> Find as enclosed an open letter to all stakeholders to participate in what is supposed to be an open consultation on 'enhanced cooperation' in NY on 14th December. >>> >>> However, the process is hardly open. It does not seem to be even as open as many traditional UN activities are. Both the Tunis Agenda, and the CSTD/ ECOSOC resolution (quoted in the letter) speaks of 'enhanced cooperation' itself as involving ' a balanced participation of all stakeholders '. >>> >>> It should be obvious that a consultation on 'enhanced cooperation', EC, (which is different from the process of enhanced cooperation ) should be even more open and participative that even EC itself. In fact it should be more or less, within limits of logistics constraints, completely open, though probably also structured enough that all governments, for instance, do get to speak all they want to (that is what they normally like to ensure/protect, UN style) >>> >>> However, the letter says that non -governmental stakeholders will only be allowed to give written contribution, plus a very tokenistic gesture of allowing just one representative (?? whose rep) to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all non governmental stakeholders (whew!) (in maybe about 5 minutes?). So basically they are calling for an inter-governmental consultation. This is not at all an open consultation, and i think we should not give it legitimacy as such. >>> >>> In fact, the letter clearly speaks of a "consultation with UN member states, Permanent Observers and other inter-governmental organizations to be held on....." >>> >>> So, it is simply not the "open and inclusive consultations involving all member states and other stakeholders....." that the recent ECOSOC resolution called for, which resolution has been quoted in the letter itself. >>> >>> I think all non-governmental stakeholders should refuse to accept it as an open consultation, and write to the SG/ USG immediately about it. If no changes in the format are forthcoming they may all together even agree not to participate in the consultations at all - not even submitting written contributions, and forgoing the 'one rep speaks for all nongov stakeholders' offer. >>> >>> On the other hand, if there are any genuine concerns of governments that the format should allow enough speak and discussion time for gov reps, which they may feel does not happen in fully open spaces, we can discuss and take them on board to devise a mutually acceptable format. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> IGCBP Online Coordinator >> DiploFoundation >> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >> >> The latest from Diplo... >> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 13 18:11:49 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:11:49 +1000 Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fair enough, I see Avri's point. But we need to strongly express the issues we have with the process. > From: Avri Doria > Reply-To: , Avri Doria > Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:25:57 -0400 > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation > > Hi, > > I think if you can get someone into the room, you get someone into the room. > > There is more that can be done than just making formal statements. And often > being in the room is critical. E.g. It allows you to pass notes to your > favorite contact from a national delegation. It allows you to join in the > coffee chatter during breaks. > > Which reminds me, if we are back to this state of affairs, people have to > start looking at getting into their national delegations again. This was a > powerful aid to CS during WSIS when only delegations were allowed into some > rooms. Having the right colored badge can be critical. > > All the memories and tricks learned in the bad old days come flooding back. > Ouch! > > And yes, we should find some way to set up a parallel meeting in NYC. Perhaps > someone local to city with resources, i mean rooms, can help make that > possible. > > a. > > > On 13 Oct 2010, at 16:48, Ian Peter wrote: > >> And perhaps accompanied by a joint statement not to attend or participate >> under these terms? >> >> >> >> >> From: Ian Peter >> Reply-To: , Ian Peter >> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 06:05:10 +1000 >> To: , William Drake >> >> Subject: Re: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation >> >> Agree with all the comments we should seek a joint icc/igc/isoc response if >> possible >> >> >> >> >> From: William Drake >> Reply-To: , William Drake >> >> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:11:27 +0200 >> To: Governance >> Subject: Re: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation >> >> Hi >> >> I agree with Ginger, a boycott would raise few eyebrows and have little to no >> impact. Disengagement doesn't count for much when they're barely thinking >> about us in the first place. If anything, it could be taken as evidence we >> don't care, or are too weak to even raise a voice. In a similar vein, in >> Vilnius I had some IO secretariat people tell me that the lack of response to >> ITU's online "consultation" a couple years ago concerning possible CS >> participation therein showed we were disinterested and pretty much >> irrelevant, hence no opening of ITU was needed. >> >> While coordination could be hard for various reasons, IGC might consider >> trying to work with the ICC and ISOC on this. We've made common cause in the >> past (mostly in WSIS) on process issues concerning the treatment of non-state >> actors etc, and any joint effort would probably resonate much more loudly >> than CS complaining solo. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> On Oct 13, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> In Venezuela it was very obvious that boycotting an election, or a process, >>> leaves your 'opponent' with a 'legal' dictatorship. We cannot willingly give >>> up our voice. >>> >>> In our recent poll, the most important issue for the IGC members was >>> precisely 'enhanced cooperation', as I reinforced in my opening statement at >>> the Vilnius IGF. We must raise our voice with a strong statement. >>> >>> We must also look for agreement/support/enhanced cooperation with other >>> non-governmental groups--academia, CS, business, etc. so that those who >>> agree make separate and united statements. >>> >>> This is a pivotal point imho. We must act decisively and in true 'enhanced >>> cooperation'. We must work in a way that fosters cooperation, with a strong, >>> reinforced--not inundated, valid position. >>> >>> We need concrete steps to move forward. How are other groups: APC, and >>> others working with this issue? >>> >>> Best, gp >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/13/2010 6:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> >>>> Agree that this is a farce. >>>> Do we refuse to comment at all and take it to the public sphere, or >>>> inundate them with written comments criticizing the approach? >>>> --MM >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:08 AM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi All >>>> >>>> Find as enclosed an open letter to all stakeholders to participate in what >>>> is supposed to be an open consultation on 'enhanced cooperation' in NY on >>>> 14th December. >>>> >>>> However, the process is hardly open. It does not seem to be even as open >>>> as many traditional UN activities are. Both the Tunis Agenda, and the CSTD/ >>>> ECOSOC resolution (quoted in the letter) speaks of 'enhanced cooperation' >>>> itself as involving ' a balanced participation of all stakeholders '. >>>> >>>> It should be obvious that a consultation on 'enhanced cooperation', EC, >>>> (which is different from the process of enhanced cooperation ) should be >>>> even more open and participative that even EC itself. In fact it should be >>>> more or less, within limits of logistics constraints, completely open, >>>> though probably also structured enough that all governments, for instance, >>>> do get to speak all they want to (that is what they normally like to >>>> ensure/protect, UN style) >>>> >>>> However, the letter says that non -governmental stakeholders will only be >>>> allowed to give written contribution, plus a very tokenistic gesture of >>>> allowing just one representative (?? whose rep) to speak during the >>>> consultations to summarize the contributions of all non governmental >>>> stakeholders (whew!) (in maybe about 5 minutes?). So basically they are >>>> calling for an inter-governmental consultation. This is not at all an open >>>> consultation, and i think we should not give it legitimacy as such. >>>> >>>> In fact, the letter clearly speaks of a "consultation with UN member >>>> states, Permanent Observers and other inter-governmental organizations to >>>> be held on....." >>>> >>>> So, it is simply not the "open and inclusive consultations involving all >>>> member states and other stakeholders....." that the recent ECOSOC >>>> resolution called for, which resolution has been quoted in the letter >>>> itself. >>>> >>>> I think all non-governmental stakeholders should refuse to accept it as an >>>> open consultation, and write to the SG/ USG immediately about it. If no >>>> changes in the format are forthcoming they may all together even agree not >>>> to participate in the consultations at all - not even submitting written >>>> contributions, and forgoing the 'one rep speaks for all nongov >>>> stakeholders' offer. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, if there are any genuine concerns of governments that >>>> the format should allow enough speak and discussion time for gov reps, >>>> which they may feel does not happen in fully open spaces, we can discuss >>>> and take them on board to devise a mutually acceptable format. >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>> IGCBP Online Coordinator >>> DiploFoundation >>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >>> >>> The latest from Diplo... >>> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online >>> companion to An Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on >>> IG. Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> *********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> Senior Associate >> Centre for International Governance >> Graduate Institute of International and >> Development Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland >> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >> www.williamdrake.org >> *********************************************************** >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Oct 13 16:28:55 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:28:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <3F6B87A0-880A-4822-A960-D095A284ED14@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20101013221316.056ac1c0@jefsey.com> At 22:05 13/10/2010, Ian Peter wrote: >Agree with all the comments we should seek a joint icc/igc/isoc >response if possible I am afraid disagree, except if: 1) we first agree that the current US over influenced ISOC/IETF/ICANN/IANA enhanced cooperation model is adequate to the Internet and to the Information Society, something I disagree with on architectural and technical grounds, unless there is a clear enhancement/enlargement road-map. The WSIS acknowledge the US leadership for the legacy, not in the emerging matters. As a result innovation that should emerge is delayed or event sometimes unwelcome. 2) we indentify a model for an enhanced cooperation structurality interested in Internet Use Technical Issues, that we could promote. jfc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Wed Oct 13 18:58:37 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:58:37 -0700 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <4CB5B3C6.4090407@gih.com> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <4CB5B3C6.4090407@gih.com> Message-ID: <4CB6399D.9060901@cavebear.com> On 10/13/2010 06:27 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > "authority derives from the consent of the governed" > > In your and my country, perhaps. On a planetary scale, that's a > minority. Hence the big hubbub from some governments feeling they > need to control this horrible thing called "Internet", which might > actually get them to, oh sacrilege, have to be accountable to their > citizens at some point in time. And that's unlikely to be happening > anytime soon. > > What we are witnessing is a 19th century organization functioning in > the 20th century, trying to control a 21st century Internet. It > ain't gonna happen. I tend to look at what is happening as a return to an era hundreds of years before that - as a return to a kind of mixed feudal and guild mentality. ICANN is very much a medieval guild - respect for historical context suggest that ICANN's headquarters ought to be in Troyes or Florence rather than Marina del Rey. The notion that forms ICANN's foundation, the notion that there some people are more important than others because they are "stakeholders" is a notion that ought to have died with established ruling nobility and personal succession. (Unfortunately, here in the US with the recent Citizens case before the supreme court we humans have been Constitutionally diminished to second rank vis-a-vis those artificial creations of legal legerdemain that we call corporations. ICANN's "stakeholder" structure very much dovetails into that philosophy.) We are very much living Satyandra's adage that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. (To which I add Karl's Corollary - If you had a great time then forget that it occurred and it is certain to happen again. ;-) I quite agree with Milton and others (including you) that it is a steep uphill trail to move beyond the past. But I do not agree that the chance that it may be a Sisyphean effort means that the task ought not to be attempted. And I agree with Milton that ICANN's ALAC is not a creation that can be considered as deserving of credit as representative of the community of internet users. (I perceive the ALAC more as a Sally Rand feather fan designed to hide ICANN's removal of even those small patches of democratic clothing that it had a decade ago.) (And I disagree with the argument that the ALAC is young and needs time. ICANN's ALAC is more than 7 years old and has received so much ICANN funding and support that ICANN is unable to generate accounting reports of how much money it has spent on ALAC life support. Do we really need a Daniel to translate the words that are clearly written on the ALAC's wall by public's forsaking of the ALAC? The message, that the ALAC has been weighed and found wanting, is rather clear.) So what does all of this mean? To my mind it means that we need to step back and ask what it is that we want to accomplish. From that, I believe, we ought to revisit history's lessons about how to structure and constrain bodies of authority. ICANN is an experiment. And like many experiments the results that say how not to do a thing are the results of greatest value. It's almost as if we are in Ionesco's "Rhinoceros" - we seem to disregard the obvious, which is that on the internet anybody can establish a new DNS hierarchy and turn-off ICANN or ITU control. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Wed Oct 13 19:31:28 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 19:31:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <4CB6399D.9060901@cavebear.com> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <4CB5B3C6.4090407@gih.com> <4CB6399D.9060901@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <94479D84-5C6B-4796-91C4-BB3B076F1E2D@psg.com> On 13 Oct 2010, at 18:58, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > The notion that forms ICANN's foundation, the notion that there some > people are more important than others because they are "stakeholders" is > a notion that ought to have died with established ruling nobility and > personal succession. this is just your definition of stakeholder that you keep flogging. i am beginning to sense a troll. 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Oct 13 19:36:47 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 04:36:47 +0500 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <4CB6399D.9060901@cavebear.com> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <4CB5B3C6.4090407@gih.com> <4CB6399D.9060901@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Just a thought.... Has anyone attempted in trying to penetrate/enter the ALAC circle, win over like minded people and attempt to improve and innovate ALAC to represent all that is being discussed here regarding ALAC being unable to serve as the voice of the Internet user? It too has bylaws and a structure that can be amended? I do see people participating in the IGF as members in ALAC too. An Internet user or consumer or whatever is at the end of the day is a Human Being. Apart from the Non-Commercial Stakeholders group (that at least from what I have witnessed, considers Human Beings as Human Beings or simply the only constituency with a "soul"), I see the need for Human Beings that use the Internet to group up through organizational affiliations to make way into ICANN processes. So, no organization or group structure means no membership in ICANN. Only NCSG gives the individual recognition and membership but the issue to get it truly recognized and influential in ICANN still remains a uphill battle like any other CS front? Too much rhetoric but not a single solution? Why is that? Is it because of too many conflicting philosophies or disagreement over basic needs of a Human Being with regards to the Internet and its governance? IGC is a very participative, collaborative, sharing based, inclusive and open CS model, an open network. It does truly signify how the Internet should remain too and maybe used as a philosophy for improvements in other IG policy circles! Interesting times :o) -- Best Fouad Bajwa On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:58 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 10/13/2010 06:27 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > >> "authority derives from the consent of the governed" >> >> In your and my country, perhaps. On a planetary scale, that's a >> minority. Hence the big hubbub from some governments feeling they >> need to control this horrible thing called "Internet", which might >> actually get them to, oh sacrilege, have to be accountable to their >> citizens at some point in time. And that's unlikely to be happening >> anytime soon. >> >> What we are witnessing is a 19th century organization functioning in >> the 20th century, trying to control a 21st century Internet. It >> ain't gonna happen. > > I tend to look at what is happening as a return to an era hundreds of > years before that - as a return to a kind of mixed feudal and guild > mentality. > > ICANN is very much a medieval guild - respect for historical context > suggest that ICANN's headquarters ought to be in Troyes or Florence > rather than Marina del Rey. > > The notion that forms ICANN's foundation, the notion that there some > people are more important than others because they are "stakeholders" is > a notion that ought to have died with established ruling nobility and > personal succession. > > (Unfortunately, here in the US with the recent Citizens case before the > supreme court we humans have been Constitutionally diminished to second > rank vis-a-vis those artificial creations of legal legerdemain that we > call corporations. ICANN's "stakeholder" structure very much dovetails > into that philosophy.) > > We are very much living Satyandra's adage that those who forget history > are doomed to repeat it. (To which I add Karl's Corollary - If you had a > great time then forget that it occurred and it is certain to happen > again. ;-) > > I quite agree with Milton and others (including you) that it is a steep > uphill trail to move beyond the past. But I do not agree that the chance > that it may be a Sisyphean effort means that the task ought not to be > attempted. > > And I agree with Milton that ICANN's ALAC is not a creation that can be > considered as deserving of credit as representative of the community of > internet users. (I perceive the ALAC more as a Sally Rand feather fan > designed to hide ICANN's removal of even those small patches of > democratic clothing that it had a decade ago.) > > (And I disagree with the argument that the ALAC is young and needs time. > ICANN's ALAC is more than 7 years old and has received so much ICANN > funding and support that ICANN is unable to generate accounting reports > of how much money it has spent on ALAC life support. Do we really need a > Daniel to translate the words that are clearly written on the ALAC's > wall by public's forsaking of the ALAC? The message, that the ALAC has > been weighed and found wanting, is rather clear.) > > So what does all of this mean? > > To my mind it means that we need to step back and ask what it is that we > want to accomplish. From that, I believe, we ought to revisit history's > lessons about how to structure and constrain bodies of authority. > > ICANN is an experiment. And like many experiments the results that say > how not to do a thing are the results of greatest value. > > It's almost as if we are in Ionesco's "Rhinoceros" - we seem to > disregard the obvious, which is that on the internet anybody can > establish a new DNS hierarchy and turn-off ICANN or ITU control. > >                --karl-- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Internet Governance Advisor ICT4D Social Practitioner & Researcher 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Oct 13 20:05:10 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 05:05:10 +0500 Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One important aspect that can be included in our protest is that the date of such a consultation has been organized after the Open Consultation and MAG meeting of the IGF in Geneva. That is already a major financial expense by IGF stakeholders and then this consultation comes as another financial burden for those that would have wanted to participate should this have been open to all stakeholders. First, this non-fictional drama is being set at a later date than the CSTD IGF improvements WG first meeting (as I heard that it was going to take place right after the IGF Open Consultation and MAG meeting in Geneva next month). We should demand it to be continuing in an open format like the Open Consultations following the above meetings with the location in Geneva. ...........power gonna go shortly so this is it for the moment....... -- Fouad On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:11 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Fair enough, I see Avri's point. But we need to strongly express the issues > we have with the process. > > > > >> From: Avri Doria >> Reply-To: , Avri Doria >> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:25:57 -0400 >> To: IGC >> Subject: Re: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation >> >> Hi, >> >> I think if you can get someone into the room, you get someone into the room. >> >> There is more that can be done than just making formal statements.  And often >> being in the room is critical.  E.g. It allows you to pass notes to your >> favorite contact from a national delegation.  It allows you to join in the >> coffee chatter during breaks. >> >> Which reminds me, if we are back to this state of affairs, people have to >> start looking at getting into their national delegations again.  This was a >> powerful aid to CS during WSIS when only delegations were allowed into some >> rooms. Having the right colored badge can be critical. >> >> All the memories and tricks learned in the bad old days come flooding back. >> Ouch! >> >> And yes, we should find some way to set up a parallel meeting in NYC.  Perhaps >> someone local to city with resources, i mean rooms, can help make that >> possible. >> >> a. >> >> >> On 13 Oct 2010, at 16:48, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> And perhaps accompanied by a joint statement not to attend or participate >>> under these terms? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Ian Peter >>> Reply-To: , Ian Peter >>> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 06:05:10 +1000 >>> To: , William Drake >>> >>> Subject: Re: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation >>> >>> Agree with all the comments we should seek a joint icc/igc/isoc response if >>> possible >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: William Drake >>> Reply-To: , William Drake >>> >>> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:11:27 +0200 >>> To: Governance >>> Subject: Re: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> I agree with Ginger, a boycott would raise few eyebrows and have little to no >>> impact.  Disengagement doesn't count for much when they're barely thinking >>> about us in the first place.  If anything, it could be taken as evidence we >>> don't care, or are too weak to even raise a voice.  In a similar vein, in >>> Vilnius I had some IO secretariat people tell me that the lack of response to >>> ITU's online "consultation" a couple years ago concerning possible CS >>> participation therein showed we were disinterested and pretty much >>> irrelevant, hence no opening of ITU was needed. >>> >>> While coordination could be hard for various reasons, IGC might consider >>> trying to work with the ICC and ISOC on this.  We've made common cause in the >>> past (mostly in WSIS) on process issues concerning the treatment of non-state >>> actors etc, and any joint effort would probably resonate much more loudly >>> than CS complaining solo. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> On Oct 13, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>>> In Venezuela it was very obvious that boycotting an election, or a process, >>>> leaves your 'opponent' with a 'legal' dictatorship. We cannot willingly give >>>> up our voice. >>>> >>>>  In our recent poll, the most important issue for the IGC members was >>>> precisely 'enhanced cooperation', as I reinforced in my opening statement at >>>> the Vilnius IGF. We must raise our voice with a strong statement. >>>> >>>>  We must also look for agreement/support/enhanced cooperation with other >>>> non-governmental groups--academia, CS, business, etc. so that those who >>>> agree make separate and united statements. >>>> >>>>  This is a pivotal point imho. We must act decisively and in true 'enhanced >>>> cooperation'. We must work in a way that fosters cooperation, with a strong, >>>> reinforced--not inundated, valid position. >>>> >>>>  We need concrete steps to move forward. How are other groups: APC, and >>>> others working with this issue? >>>> >>>>  Best, gp >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  On 10/13/2010 6:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Agree that this is a farce. >>>>> Do we refuse to comment at all and take it to the public sphere, or >>>>> inundate them with written comments criticizing the approach? >>>>> --MM >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>>>>  Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:08 AM >>>>>  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>  Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi All >>>>> >>>>>  Find as enclosed an open letter to all stakeholders to participate in what >>>>> is supposed to be an open consultation on 'enhanced cooperation' in NY on >>>>> 14th December. >>>>> >>>>>  However, the process is hardly open. It does not seem to be even as open >>>>> as many traditional UN activities are. Both the Tunis Agenda, and the CSTD/ >>>>> ECOSOC resolution (quoted in the letter) speaks of 'enhanced cooperation' >>>>> itself as involving ' a balanced participation of all stakeholders '. >>>>> >>>>>  It should be obvious that a consultation on 'enhanced cooperation', EC, >>>>> (which is different from the process of enhanced cooperation ) should be >>>>> even more open and participative that even EC itself. In fact it should be >>>>> more or less, within limits of logistics constraints, completely open, >>>>> though probably also structured enough that all governments, for instance, >>>>> do get to speak all they want to (that is what they normally like to >>>>> ensure/protect, UN style) >>>>> >>>>>  However, the letter says that non -governmental stakeholders will only be >>>>> allowed to give written contribution, plus a very tokenistic gesture of >>>>> allowing just one representative (?? whose rep) to speak during the >>>>> consultations to summarize the contributions of all non governmental >>>>> stakeholders (whew!) (in maybe about 5 minutes?). So basically they are >>>>> calling for an inter-governmental consultation. This is not at all an open >>>>> consultation, and i think we should not give it legitimacy as such. >>>>> >>>>>  In fact, the letter clearly speaks of a "consultation with UN member >>>>> states, Permanent Observers and other inter-governmental organizations to >>>>> be held on....." >>>>> >>>>>  So, it is simply not the "open and inclusive consultations involving all >>>>> member states and other stakeholders....." that the recent ECOSOC >>>>> resolution called for, which resolution has been quoted in the letter >>>>> itself. >>>>> >>>>>  I think all non-governmental stakeholders should refuse to accept it as an >>>>> open consultation, and write to the SG/ USG immediately about it. If no >>>>> changes in the format are forthcoming they may all together even agree not >>>>> to participate in the consultations at all - not even submitting written >>>>> contributions, and forgoing the 'one rep speaks for all nongov >>>>> stakeholders' offer. >>>>> >>>>>  On the other hand, if there are any genuine concerns of governments that >>>>> the format should allow enough speak and discussion time for gov reps, >>>>> which they may feel does not happen in fully open spaces, we can discuss >>>>> and take them on board to devise a mutually acceptable format. >>>>> >>>>>  Parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>>>  IGCBP Online Coordinator >>>>  DiploFoundation >>>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >>>> >>>> The latest from Diplo... >>>> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu   is the online >>>> companion to An Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on >>>> IG. Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments. >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> *********************************************************** >>> William J. Drake >>> Senior Associate >>> Centre for International Governance >>> Graduate Institute of International and >>>  Development Studies >>> Geneva, Switzerland >>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >>> www.williamdrake.org >>> *********************************************************** >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Wed Oct 13 21:51:08 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:51:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] Skype op for IGC member with Mexican consumer In-Reply-To: <226CD0D0-0575-46EF-AEEC-A0825EAEE00C@ciroap.org> References: <226CD0D0-0575-46EF-AEEC-A0825EAEE00C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: sounds interesting - remote participation in IGF related activities is good. What time exactly on Oct 19th? izumi 2010/10/13 Jeremy Malcolm > Mexican consumer group Colectivo Ecologista Jalisco is holding a press > conference in Guadalajara, Mexico alongside the 18th ITU plenipotentiary > conference which is being held there, next Tuesday October 19th. I was > invited to participate via Skype to discuss Internet issues that I consider > fundamental, but it will be difficult for me due to travel. Is there anyone > else who is interested in participating? If you speak Spanish (I don't), > even better! > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer > rights around the world. > *http://www.consumersinternational.org/50* > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Thu Oct 14 00:02:12 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:02:12 -0700 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4CB680C4.1060301@cavebear.com> On 10/13/2010 07:25 AM, John Curran wrote: > The Regional Internet Registries make use of this model for policy > formation, and I can say that it works quite well in the ARIN region. The RIRs have also hit upon a core-element of success - they confine their policy to a fairly narrow realm that has rather clear ties to technical constraints and goals. And as we have seen in the ARIN debates over marketplaces for IP addresses, once we begin to move outside of that narrow, technically grounded core area the difficulty of reaching good solutions becomes much harder. It has long been my sense that one of the ways we can improve our approach to internet governance is to divide our goals so that we can shrink wrap a narrowly tailored, tightly defined body of governance around each one of those goals. We would find, I assert, that in many cases that the "governance" of an issue would be largely a clerical matter that rarely, if ever would cause debate or concern - consider for instance most of the protocol parameter assignments made by IANA. There would, of course, be a few nuggets, such as TLD policy, that would be real hard to handle; but they would be easier to handle then the kind of generalized, expansive policymaking that has so bedeviled ICANN. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ocl at gih.com Thu Oct 14 03:51:57 2010 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:51:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <4CB5B3C6.4090407@gih.com> <4CB6399D.9060901@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4CB6B69D.7060004@gih.com> Hello Fouad, Le 14/10/2010 01:36, Fouad Bajwa a écrit : > An Internet user or consumer or whatever is at the end of the day is a > Human Being. Apart from the Non-Commercial Stakeholders group (that at > least from what I have witnessed, considers Human Beings as Human > Beings or simply the only constituency with a "soul"), I see the need > for Human Beings that use the Internet to group up through > organizational affiliations to make way into ICANN processes. So, no > organization or group structure means no membership in ICANN. Only > NCSG gives the individual recognition and membership but the issue to > get it truly recognized and influential in ICANN still remains a > uphill battle like any other CS front? Very good point indeed. Both NARALO and EURALO are currently working on processes to accept individual membership. Other RALOs might be also doing this too without my being aware of it. Much progress on this is likely to be achieved at the next ICANN meeting in Cartagena. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Thu Oct 14 05:16:05 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:16:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi all I strongly support all exchanges are now. These reactions show our motivation enough not to leave without stepping on toes that we can claim our rights. I also propose that we combine potential expertise in developing countries, women and men. APC and DiploFoundation have focal points in most of these countries. From my side, I began to attract academic institutions and contacted individually some professors in different universities. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) ACADEMIE DES TIC *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914 email: b.schombe at gmail.com blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2010/10/13 parminder > Hi All > > Find as enclosed an open letter to all stakeholders to participate in what > is supposed to be an open consultation on 'enhanced cooperation' in NY on > 14th December. > > However, the process is hardly open. It does not seem to be even as open as > many traditional UN activities are. Both the Tunis Agenda, and the CSTD/ > ECOSOC resolution (quoted in the letter) speaks of 'enhanced cooperation' > itself as involving ' a balanced participation of all stakeholders '. > > It should be obvious that a consultation on 'enhanced cooperation', EC, > (which is different from the process of enhanced cooperation ) should be > even more open and participative that even EC itself. In fact it should be > more or less, within limits of logistics constraints, completely open, > though probably also structured enough that all governments, for instance, > do get to speak all they want to (that is what they normally like to > ensure/protect, UN style) > > However, the letter says that non -governmental stakeholders will only be > allowed to give written contribution, plus a very tokenistic gesture of > allowing just one representative (?? whose rep) to speak during the > consultations to summarize the contributions of all non governmental > stakeholders (whew!) (in maybe about 5 minutes?). So basically they are > calling for an inter-governmental consultation. This is not at all an open > consultation, and i think we should not give it legitimacy as such. > > In fact, the letter clearly speaks of a "consultation with UN member > states, Permanent Observers and other inter-governmental organizations to be > held on....." > > So, it is simply not the "open and inclusive consultations involving all > member states and other stakeholders....." that the recent ECOSOC resolution > called for, which resolution has been quoted in the letter itself. > > I think all non-governmental stakeholders should refuse to accept it as an > open consultation, and write to the SG/ USG immediately about it. If no > changes in the format are forthcoming they may all together even agree not > to participate in the consultations at all - not even submitting written > contributions, and forgoing the 'one rep speaks for all nongov stakeholders' > offer. > > On the other hand, if there are any genuine concerns of governments that > the format should allow enough speak and discussion time for gov reps, which > they may feel does not happen in fully open spaces, we can discuss and take > them on board to devise a mutually acceptable format. > > 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 nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Thu Oct 14 06:09:32 2010 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:09:32 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <327534.87467.qm@web25901.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Hello all, I agree that we have to make a joint statement. One of the idea to put in would be to criticise the law level of openess of that event. NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul Burundi Youth Training Centre www.bytc.bi Tel : +257 79 981459 ________________________________ >>> From: Ian Peter >>> Reply-To: , Ian Peter >>> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 06:05:10 +1000 >>> To: , William Drake >>> >>> Subject: Re: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation >>> >>> Agree with all the comments we should seek a joint icc/igc/isoc response if >>> possible >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: William Drake >>> Reply-To: , William Drake >>> >>> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:11:27 +0200 >>> To: Governance >>> Subject: Re: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> I agree with Ginger, a boycott would raise few eyebrows and have little to no >>> impact. Disengagement doesn't count for much when they're barely thinking >>> about us in the first place. If anything, it could be taken as evidence we >>> don't care, or are too weak to even raise a voice. In a similar vein, in >>> Vilnius I had some IO secretariat people tell me that the lack of response to >>> ITU's online "consultation" a couple years ago concerning possible CS >>> participation therein showed we were disinterested and pretty much >>> irrelevant, hence no opening of ITU was needed. >>> >>> While coordination could be hard for various reasons, IGC might consider >>> trying to work with the ICC and ISOC on this. We've made common cause in the >>> past (mostly in WSIS) on process issues concerning the treatment of non-state >>> actors etc, and any joint effort would probably resonate much more loudly >>> than CS complaining solo. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> On Oct 13, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>>> In Venezuela it was very obvious that boycotting an election, or a process, >>>> leaves your 'opponent' with a 'legal' dictatorship. We cannot willingly give >>>> up our voice. >>>> >>>> In our recent poll, the most important issue for the IGC members was >>>> precisely 'enhanced cooperation', as I reinforced in my opening statement at >>>> the Vilnius IGF. We must raise our voice with a strong statement. >>>> >>>> We must also look for agreement/support/enhanced cooperation with other >>>> non-governmental groups--academia, CS, business, etc. so that those who >>>> agree make separate and united statements. >>>> >>>> This is a pivotal point imho. We must act decisively and in true 'enhanced >>>> cooperation'. We must work in a way that fosters cooperation, with a strong, >>>> reinforced--not inundated, valid position. >>>> >>>> We need concrete steps to move forward. How are other groups: APC, and >>>> others working with this issue? >>>> >>>> Best, gp >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/13/2010 6:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Agree that this is a farce. >>>>> Do we refuse to comment at all and take it to the public sphere, or >>>>> inundate them with written comments criticizing the approach? >>>>> --MM >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:08 AM >>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi All >>>>> >>>>> Find as enclosed an open letter to all stakeholders to participate in what >>>>> is supposed to be an open consultation on 'enhanced cooperation' in NY on >>>>> 14th December. >>>>> >>>>> However, the process is hardly open. It does not seem to be even as open >>>>> as many traditional UN activities are. Both the Tunis Agenda, and the CSTD/ >>>>> ECOSOC resolution (quoted in the letter) speaks of 'enhanced cooperation' >>>>> itself as involving ' a balanced participation of all stakeholders '. >>>>> >>>>> It should be obvious that a consultation on 'enhanced cooperation', EC, >>>>> (which is different from the process of enhanced cooperation ) should be >>>>> even more open and participative that even EC itself. In fact it should be >>>>> more or less, within limits of logistics constraints, completely open, >>>>> though probably also structured enough that all governments, for instance, >>>>> do get to speak all they want to (that is what they normally like to >>>>> ensure/protect, UN style) >>>>> >>>>> However, the letter says that non -governmental stakeholders will only be >>>>> allowed to give written contribution, plus a very tokenistic gesture of >>>>> allowing just one representative (?? whose rep) to speak during the >>>>> consultations to summarize the contributions of all non governmental >>>>> stakeholders (whew!) (in maybe about 5 minutes?). So basically they are >>>>> calling for an inter-governmental consultation. This is not at all an open >>>>> consultation, and i think we should not give it legitimacy as such. >>>>> >>>>> In fact, the letter clearly speaks of a "consultation with UN member >>>>> states, Permanent Observers and other inter-governmental organizations to >>>>> be held on....." >>>>> >>>>> So, it is simply not the "open and inclusive consultations involving all >>>>> member states and other stakeholders....." that the recent ECOSOC >>>>> resolution called for, which resolution has been quoted in the letter >>>>> itself. >>>>> >>>>> I think all non-governmental stakeholders should refuse to accept it as an >>>>> open consultation, and write to the SG/ USG immediately about it. If no >>>>> changes in the format are forthcoming they may all together even agree not >>>>> to participate in the consultations at all - not even submitting written >>>>> contributions, and forgoing the 'one rep speaks for all nongov >>>>> stakeholders' offer. >>>>> >>>>> On the other hand, if there are any genuine concerns of governments that >>>>> the format should allow enough speak and discussion time for gov reps, >>>>> which they may feel does not happen in fully open spaces, we can discuss >>>>> and take them on board to devise a mutually acceptable format. >>>>> >>>>> Parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>>> IGCBP Online Coordinator >>>> DiploFoundation >>>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >>>> >>>> The latest from Diplo... >>>> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online >>>> companion to An Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on >>>> IG. Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments. >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> *********************************************************** >>> William J. Drake >>> Senior Associate >>> Centre for International Governance >>> Graduate Institute of International and >>> Development Studies >>> Geneva, Switzerland >>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >>> www.williamdrake.org >>> *********************************************************** >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Thu Oct 14 06:17:29 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:17:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20101013221316.056ac1c0@jefsey.com> References: <3F6B87A0-880A-4822-A960-D095A284ED14@graduateinstitute.ch> <7.0.1.0.2.20101013221316.056ac1c0@jefsey.com> Message-ID: <32776809.1147.1287051449859.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h09> jfc wrote : So do I, except that I'd add "political grounds" The Internet is considerered by a large part of CSOs, notably among  those committed in the WSIS process, as a global Common Good. Therefore it is to be "governed" by a multilateral, multistakeholder body. All these Internet bodies mentioned by jfc are heavily influended by the US, by government (DoC) and legislation (California law and rules) as well as by the private sector (Cisco, HP, MS, Google, eBay, ....). And this cannot be accepted in any way by TRUE CS orgs and their members. We want a "people centered information society" (refer to the CS Declaration of Geneva, 2003) and not a mixture of US constituencies and corporations/firms/multinationals monitored one ! Best Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT > Message du 14/10/10 00:23 > De : "JFC Morfin" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ian Peter" , governance at lists.cpsr.org, "William Drake" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation > > At 22:05 13/10/2010, Ian Peter wrote: > Agree with all the comments we should seek a joint icc/igc/isoc response if possible > I am afraid disagree, except if: > > 1) we first agree that the current US over influenced ISOC/IETF/ICANN/IANA enhanced cooperation model is adequate to the Internet and to the Information Society, something I disagree with on architectural and technical grounds, unless there is a clear enhancement/enlargement road-map. The WSIS acknowledge the US leadership for the legacy, not in the emerging matters. As a result innovation that should emerge is delayed or event sometimes unwelcome. > > 2) we indentify a model for an enhanced cooperation structurality interested in Internet Use Technical Issues, that we could promote. > > jfc > > [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Thu Oct 14 07:11:50 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:11:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <32776809.1147.1287051449859.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h09> References: <3F6B87A0-880A-4822-A960-D095A284ED14@graduateinstitute.ch> <7.0.1.0.2.20101013221316.056ac1c0@jefsey.com> <32776809.1147.1287051449859.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h09> Message-ID: It should be noted that experience has sufficiently proven the importance and role of nongovernmental actors in several development programs and humanitarian operations, especially with the revolution of digital technology. That these actors are in developed countries or developing countries, they became key intermediaries. Non-governmental actors are not competing for either the government or the private sector but indispensable and necessary intermediaries. Icann has managed to develop a prototype platform that reflects the concept of "multistakeholder". Experience that had begun during the process of the first phase of World Summit on the Information Society. Since we return again to this debate, would it not desirable that we take all these processes in an analytical approach to enable us to define our strategy for action by 2015? SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) ACADEMIE DES TIC *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914 email: b.schombe at gmail.com blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2010/10/14 Jean-Louis FULLSACK > jfc wrote : > > model is adequate to the Internet and to the Information Society, something > I disagree with on architectural and technical grounds> > > So do I, except that I'd add "political grounds" > > The Internet is considerered by a large part of CSOs, notably among those > committed in the WSIS process, as a global Common Good. Therefore it is to > be "governed" by a multilateral, multistakeholder body. > All these Internet bodies mentioned by jfc are heavily influended by the > US, by government (DoC) and legislation (California law and rules) as well > as by the private sector (Cisco, HP, MS, Google, eBay, ....). And this > cannot be accepted in any way by TRUE CS orgs and their members. > We want a "people centered information society" (refer to the CS > Declaration of Geneva, 2003) and not a mixture of US constituencies and > corporations/firms/multinationals monitored one ! > > Best > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > CSDPTT > > > > > > Message du 14/10/10 00:23 > > De : "JFC Morfin" > > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ian Peter" , governance at lists.cpsr.org, > "William Drake" > > Copie à : > > Objet : Re: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation > > > > > At 22:05 13/10/2010, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > Agree with all the comments we should seek a joint icc/igc/isoc response if > possible > > > > I am afraid disagree, except if: > > > > 1) we first agree that the current US over influenced > ISOC/IETF/ICANN/IANA enhanced cooperation model is adequate to the Internet > and to the Information Society, something I disagree with on architectural > and technical grounds, unless there is a clear enhancement/enlargement > road-map. The WSIS acknowledge the US leadership for the legacy, not in the > emerging matters. As a result innovation that should emerge is delayed or > event sometimes unwelcome. > > > > 2) we indentify a model for an enhanced cooperation structurality > interested in Internet Use Technical Issues, that we could promote. > > > > jfc > > > > [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ] > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Oct 14 07:40:59 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:40:59 +0700 Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <327534.87467.qm@web25901.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <327534.87467.qm@web25901.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C883137-DF4F-4175-9B08-70B4D4F06DE4@ciroap.org> On 14/10/2010, at 5:09 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: > Hello all, > I agree that we have to make a joint statement. One of the idea to put in would be to criticise the law level of openess of that event. This is underway. Izumi has taken the initiative on this and we have been in touch with the ICC and ISOC. We now await their response and in the meantime are working on a letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha which will be posted here probably tomorrow as a draft. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Oct 14 07:47:22 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 07:17:22 -0430 Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <4C883137-DF4F-4175-9B08-70B4D4F06DE4@ciroap.org> References: <327534.87467.qm@web25901.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4C883137-DF4F-4175-9B08-70B4D4F06DE4@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4CB6EDCA.6080306@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 iza at anr.org Thu Oct 14 09:21:18 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 22:21:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <4CB6EDCA.6080306@paque.net> References: <327534.87467.qm@web25901.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4C883137-DF4F-4175-9B08-70B4D4F06DE4@ciroap.org> <4CB6EDCA.6080306@paque.net> Message-ID: Dear list, Thank you for all the comments made on this important thread, and yes, as one of my first job as co-coordinator, I have consulted with Jeremy and sent a short email to Ayesha HASSAN of ICC and Bill Graham at ISOC asking if they are ready to send joint-statement with us, keeping "multistakeholderism" in mind strongly. And Jeremy agreed to prepare the draft statement during his trip in Cambodia. Jeremy and I are also aware that some of us are concerned about our partnership with other stakeholders. We will ask you all to continue the debate and hope to reach some mutual position or [rough] consensus within IGC, as well as, if so happens, with other stakeholders to move on. As a newbie, I plan to write some other points concerning our sort of "modas operandi" later. I am trying to catch up, still. Slow, yes, but step by step if you could understand. thanks again, izumi 2010/10/14 Ginger Paque > Izumi and Jeremy are off to a great start. It is time to move on this :) > Thanks. > > > On 10/14/2010 7:10 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 14/10/2010, at 5:09 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: > > Hello all, > I agree that we have to make a joint statement. One of the idea to put in > would be to criticise the law level of openess of that event. > > > This is underway. Izumi has taken the initiative on this and we have > been in touch with the ICC and ISOC. We now await their response and in the > meantime are working on a letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha which will > be posted here probably tomorrow as a draft. > > -- > > *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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 14 10:51:46 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:51:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <4CB680C4.1060301@cavebear.com> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB680C4.1060301@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <0FC5A53B-652C-48C9-8B70-EB5C9681849D@arin.net> On Oct 14, 2010, at 12:02 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > It has long been my sense that one of the ways we can improve our approach to internet governance is to divide our goals so that we can shrink wrap a narrowly tailored, tightly defined body of governance around each one of those goals. We would find, I assert, that in many cases that the "governance" of an issue would be largely a clerical matter that rarely, if ever would cause debate or concern - consider for instance most of the protocol parameter assignments made by IANA. There would, of course, be a few nuggets, such as TLD policy, that would be real hard to handle; but they would be easier to handle then the kind of generalized, expansive policymaking that has so bedeviled ICANN. 100% agreement here. Having a group focused on fairly narrow subject area encourages discussion of the actual issues (both pro & con) of proposed policy, which in turns empowers all voices which can add to the deliberations and help the group reach informed consensus. /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca Thu Oct 14 13:36:26 2010 From: alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca (Alan Greenberg) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:36:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <4CB6B69D.7060004@gih.com> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <4CB5B3C6.4090407@gih.com> <4CB6399D.9060901@cavebear.com> <4CB6B69D.7060004@gih.com> Message-ID: Just for the record, the NARALO has had individual unaffiliated members since its inception. Alan At 14/10/2010 03:51 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >.... >Both NARALO and EURALO are currently working on processes to accept >individual membership. >Other RALOs might be also doing this too without my being aware of it. >Much progress on this is likely to be achieved at the next ICANN meeting >in Cartagena. >Kind regards, > >Olivier ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 14 22:02:51 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:02:51 +0700 Subject: [governance] Re: Skype op for IGC member with Mexican consumer group's ITU plenipot press conference In-Reply-To: <226CD0D0-0575-46EF-AEEC-A0825EAEE00C@ciroap.org> References: <226CD0D0-0575-46EF-AEEC-A0825EAEE00C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 13/10/2010, at 8:09 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Mexican consumer group Colectivo Ecologista Jalisco is holding a press conference in Guadalajara, Mexico alongside the 18th ITU plenipotentiary conference which is being held there, next Tuesday October 19th. I was invited to participate via Skype to discuss Internet issues that I consider fundamental, but it will be difficult for me due to travel. Is there anyone else who is interested in participating? If you speak Spanish (I don't), even better! This would be at 11:00 or 12:00 local time, which is 16:00 17:00 GMT/UTC. Monday the 18th is also a possibility. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mueller at syr.edu Fri Oct 15 17:28:55 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:28:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA65A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Very good observation > -----Original Message----- > The real strength of this approach is that it leads to better > understanding and shared sense of outcome, rather than having > hardened positions from multiple groups all having to be > somehow accommodated afterwards by a "Board level" decision > process. --MM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Fri Oct 15 18:13:20 2010 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 18:13:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <4CB6399D.9060901@cavebear.com> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <4CB5B3C6.4090407@gih.com> <4CB6399D.9060901@cavebear.com> Message-ID: I disagree. The Interim ALAC was a very different creature, and the true ALAC really can be said to have begun with the creation of the RALOs. That means that the ALAC most certainly isn't 7 years old at all. The regional input is much more than you admit, and ALAC members voted for by the RALOs are voted on by the members of the ALS organisations - and they give direction to their reps on pretty much everything. ALSes also provide members for working groups and task forces, and since the inception of the RALOs, there have been many more new participants in all aspects of ICANN and indeed, IG. Many of the ALS members are from developing and underdeveloped areas, and it makes ALAC much more representative. It isn't perfect by any means, but it needs to be praised for what it does and not just abused for what it doesn't, or isn't. Jacqueline On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > And I agree with Milton that ICANN's ALAC is not a creation that can be > considered as deserving of credit as representative of the community of > internet users. (I perceive the ALAC more as a Sally Rand feather fan > designed to hide ICANN's removal of even those small patches of > democratic clothing that it had a decade ago.) > > (And I disagree with the argument that the ALAC is young and needs time. > ICANN's ALAC is more than 7 years old and has received so much ICANN > funding and support that ICANN is unable to generate accounting reports > of how much money it has spent on ALAC life support. Do we really need a > Daniel to translate the words that are clearly written on the ALAC's > wall by public's forsaking of the ALAC? The message, that the ALAC has > been weighed and found wanting, is rather clear.) > > So what does all of this mean? > > To my mind it means that we need to step back and ask what it is that we > want to accomplish. From that, I believe, we ought to revisit history's > lessons about how to structure and constrain bodies of authority. > > ICANN is an experiment. And like many experiments the results that say > how not to do a thing are the results of greatest value. > > It's almost as if we are in Ionesco's "Rhinoceros" - we seem to > disregard the obvious, which is that on the internet anybody can > establish a new DNS hierarchy and turn-off ICANN or ITU control. > > --karl-- > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Fri Oct 15 21:01:35 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 18:01:35 -0700 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <4CB5B3C6.4090407@gih.com> <4CB6399D.9060901@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4CB8F96F.3080801@cavebear.com> On 10/15/2010 03:13 PM, Jacqueline Morris wrote: > I disagree. The Interim ALAC was a very different creature, and the true > ALAC really can be said to have begun with the creation of the RALOs. > That means that the ALAC most certainly isn't 7 years old at all. Your mathematics and mine are rather different. I first heard "the ALAC is too new to judge" excuse perhaps 6 years ago. Back then there might have been some weight to that excuse. But many years have intervened. Since year 2003 ICANN has given assistance to the ALAC in the form of hundreds of thousands of direct dollars (perhaps more, ICANN can't tell) and a similar amount of staff time. Throughout that interval there has been nothing to stop the formation of those sub-bodies called RALOs and ALS's - he only thing that held the RALOs and ALS's back was lack of willpower. It is the public's recognition of the ALAC system as a captive, kept body that has caused it to grow less in 7 years than the public election system did in 7 weeks. In other words, the reason that the ALAC and (its sub-structures) is withered is that there is nothing on the table for it to do; there is nothing to attract the interest and time of people interested in internet governance. The ALAC has as much power to control direction in ICANN as a childs toy steering wheel has power to control an automobile - none. It is the ability to affect the exercise of power that would draw people to the ALAC. That ability is absent. We see a similar issue in other fora of internet governance - there is lots of space to talk - and talk endlessly we do - and little space to exercise authority. It is useful to compare the vibrancy of the other "stakeholder" groups within ICANN to the ALAC - those other groups have a $$ stake and they have self-organized into effective powers within ICANN. In fact the intellectual property group organized so quickly after ICANN's creation that it was able to ram the UDRP into effect ICANN before any countervailing groups could form. Back in the 1880s through 1930's industrial corporations found a useful tool to fight the growing labour unions - that tool was the "company union". It is revealing how much the ALAC resembles a company union not merely in its shape and form but also in its financial dependency. Here in the US the company union was found to be so contrary to the public good that it was declared unlawful. What is there about the ALAC, if anything, that immunizes it from the dangers that made company unions unacceptable? If one argues that the ALAC is "new" and thus must be forgiven its small size and given the benefit of every doubt, then by comparable mathematics the original election system was given but a few hours of life before it was killed without proof that it was ailing. Why the intensive care given to the ALAC when there was a rush to execution for the original election system? The answer, in my mind, is that the the board members that came out of the election process were independent and empowered - to a man (they were all men) they were more vocal and active than the non-elected directors. ICANN's fear of the public took concrete form in the elected directors. On the other hand the ALAC is exactly what was intended by its creators - a dependent creature crushed under the weight of an over-ramified organizational hierarchy; all gums, no teeth. ICANN is a public-benefit corporation; it exists to protect and enhance the public good. And to that end ICANN when it was created promised that more than half of its board seats would be chosen by the public. We waited three years to get any - and when we got them it was a minority 5 out of about 17. Then two years later, for the price of an ALAC and an ombudsman, ICANN cut that to zero. Three years ago some of us worked our tails off to get ICANN to formally consider returning to a paltry two board seats to be filled by the community of internet users. I did not hear much of a ruckus from the ALAC when that diminutive number was cut in half to one. Even if we accept the claim that the ALAC is "new" and that it will grow, it is like looking at a new-born mouse and trying to imagine "here is a lion" - its genetics make that an unlikely outcome. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Fri Oct 15 23:20:55 2010 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 23:20:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <4CB8F96F.3080801@cavebear.com> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <4CB5B3C6.4090407@gih.com> <4CB6399D.9060901@cavebear.com> <4CB8F96F.3080801@cavebear.com> Message-ID: The INTERIM-ALAC might have taken a long time to get going to form the RALOs, but since they have formed, there is definitely interest and activity. So to be fair, you really need to separate the pre-RALO and post-RALO At-Larges. With regard to the history, yep, I've heard all of it before. But given that we are not able to turn back the hands of time, it remains just that, history. I prefer to deal with what is now in the present, and work with the At Large, the RALOs and ALAC to move forward, rather than forever looking back and bemoaning what was, and complaining about what is, because it is different. Your email reminds me of the old-timers who forever hearken back to the good old days when one could leave the back door open without fear of thieves, when one had to walk 2 miles to go to school, uphill both ways! Jacqueline On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 10/15/2010 03:13 PM, Jacqueline Morris wrote: > >> I disagree. The Interim ALAC was a very different creature, and the true >> ALAC really can be said to have begun with the creation of the RALOs. >> That means that the ALAC most certainly isn't 7 years old at all. >> > > Your mathematics and mine are rather different. > > I first heard "the ALAC is too new to judge" excuse perhaps 6 years ago. > > Back then there might have been some weight to that excuse. But many years > have intervened. > > Since year 2003 ICANN has given assistance to the ALAC in the form of > hundreds of thousands of direct dollars (perhaps more, ICANN can't tell) and > a similar amount of staff time. > > Throughout that interval there has been nothing to stop the formation of > those sub-bodies called RALOs and ALS's - he only thing that held the RALOs > and ALS's back was lack of willpower. > > It is the public's recognition of the ALAC system as a captive, kept body > that has caused it to grow less in 7 years than the public election system > did in 7 weeks. > > In other words, the reason that the ALAC and (its sub-structures) is > withered is that there is nothing on the table for it to do; there is > nothing to attract the interest and time of people interested in internet > governance. > > The ALAC has as much power to control direction in ICANN as a childs toy > steering wheel has power to control an automobile - none. > > It is the ability to affect the exercise of power that would draw people to > the ALAC. That ability is absent. > > We see a similar issue in other fora of internet governance - there is lots > of space to talk - and talk endlessly we do - and little space to exercise > authority. > > It is useful to compare the vibrancy of the other "stakeholder" groups > within ICANN to the ALAC - those other groups have a $$ stake and they have > self-organized into effective powers within ICANN. In fact the intellectual > property group organized so quickly after ICANN's creation that it was able > to ram the UDRP into effect ICANN before any countervailing groups could > form. > > Back in the 1880s through 1930's industrial corporations found a useful > tool to fight the growing labour unions - that tool was the "company union". > It is revealing how much the ALAC resembles a company union not merely in > its shape and form but also in its financial dependency. > > Here in the US the company union was found to be so contrary to the public > good that it was declared unlawful. > > What is there about the ALAC, if anything, that immunizes it from the > dangers that made company unions unacceptable? > > If one argues that the ALAC is "new" and thus must be forgiven its small > size and given the benefit of every doubt, then by comparable mathematics > the original election system was given but a few hours of life before it was > killed without proof that it was ailing. > > Why the intensive care given to the ALAC when there was a rush to execution > for the original election system? The answer, in my mind, is that the the > board members that came out of the election process were independent and > empowered - to a man (they were all men) they were more vocal and active > than the non-elected directors. ICANN's fear of the public took concrete > form in the elected directors. On the other hand the ALAC is exactly what > was intended by its creators - a dependent creature crushed under the weight > of an over-ramified organizational hierarchy; all gums, no teeth. > > ICANN is a public-benefit corporation; it exists to protect and enhance the > public good. > > And to that end ICANN when it was created promised that more than half of > its board seats would be chosen by the public. > > We waited three years to get any - and when we got them it was a minority 5 > out of about 17. > > Then two years later, for the price of an ALAC and an ombudsman, ICANN cut > that to zero. > > Three years ago some of us worked our tails off to get ICANN to formally > consider returning to a paltry two board seats to be filled by the community > of internet users. > > I did not hear much of a ruckus from the ALAC when that diminutive number > was cut in half to one. > > Even if we accept the claim that the ALAC is "new" and that it will grow, > it is like looking at a new-born mouse and trying to imagine "here is a > lion" - its genetics make that an unlikely outcome. > > > --karl-- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Sat Oct 16 00:01:55 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 21:01:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <4CB5B3C6.4090407@gih.com> <4CB6399D.9060901@cavebear.com> <4CB8F96F.3080801@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4CB923B3.70400@cavebear.com> On 10/15/2010 08:20 PM, Jacqueline Morris wrote: > The INTERIM-ALAC might have taken a long time to get going to form the > RALOs, but since they have formed, there is definitely interest and > activity. So to be fair, you really need to separate the pre-RALO and > post-RALO At-Larges. There really is no great divide in pre-RALO and post. The simple fact is that it has been possible to start those for 7 years. But what we have is a structure that shows more signs of arguing over minutiae than actually obtaining the position of authority that ICANN promised long ago. I am reminded of the fighting among the kingdoms of Lilliput. The point that I am trying to make here are these: The ALAC is too entrenched to expect that it will go. (But then again, there is reason to believe that ICANN's lever of authority is going to start fading thus, in turn, obviating the ALAC.) However, in the larger world of yet-to-be-formed bodies of internet governance it would be wrong for the community of internet users to accept the kind of subordinate, weakened role that things like the ALAC represent. The cry "Never Again" although from another context is apropos. > With regard to the history, yep, I've heard all of it before. Yes, and as I've quoted Satyandra's aphorism before. But I did not raise the simularity between the ALAC hierarchy and the hierarchy of soviets in the defunct USSR. The trouble with the track you are taking - one of optimism - is that I don't think that I am alone in finding myself unable to raise enough optimism to overcome the fact that the ALAC was designed with the express intent for it to be crippled. I've tried over the years to give the ALAC the benefit of the doubt; in no small part through my efforts the public may eventually get one board seat. But that does not mean that I'm going to blind myself to the incapacities that were designed into the ALAC to prevent it from affecting the goals of ICANN's $$ based "stakeholders". --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Sat Oct 16 06:19:38 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:19:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <0FC5A53B-652C-48C9-8B70-EB5C9681849D@arin.net> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB680C4.1060301@cavebear.com> <0FC5A53B-652C-48C9-8B70-EB5C9681849D@arin.net> Message-ID: <4CB97C3A.7080402@wzb.eu> On 14.10.2010 16:51, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 14, 2010, at 12:02 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: >> >> It has long been my sense that one of the ways we can improve our approach to internet governance is to divide our goals so that we can shrink wrap a narrowly tailored, tightly defined body of governance around each one of those goals. We would find, I assert, that in many cases that the "governance" of an issue would be largely a clerical matter that rarely, if ever would cause debate or concern - consider for instance most of the protocol parameter assignments made by IANA. There would, of course, be a few nuggets, such as TLD policy, that would be real hard to handle; but they would be easier to handle then the kind of generalized, expansive policymaking that has so bedeviled ICANN. > > 100% agreement here. Having a group focused on fairly narrow subject > area encourages discussion of the actual issues (both pro& con) of > proposed policy, which in turns empowers all voices which can add > to the deliberations and help the group reach informed consensus. > > /John As Karl mentions, the RIR approach does not work in all policy areas. The DNS, for example, attracts very diverse and antagonistic interests. While the RIRs have every reason to be happy that there "narrow subject area" approach works out for the address space, I don't think one can generalize this as a model for all IG related areas. jeanette > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Oct 16 06:41:49 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:41:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <4CB923B3.70400@cavebear.com> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <4CB5B3C6.4090407@gih.com> <4CB6399D.9060901@cavebear.com> <4CB8F96F.3080801@cavebear.com> <4CB923B3.70400@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20101016121203.0b930cc8@jefsey.com> At 06:01 16/10/2010, Karl Auerbach wrote: >I don't think that I am alone in finding myself unable to raise >enough optimism to overcome the fact that the ALAC was designed with >the express intent for it to be crippled. > >I've tried over the years to give the ALAC the benefit of the doubt; >in no small part through my efforts the public may eventually get >one board seat. But that does not mean that I'm going to blind >myself to the incapacities that were designed into the ALAC to >prevent it from affecting the goals of ICANN's $$ based "stakeholders". +1 The real issue as I understand it is about the range of time of the considered scopes. There are three range of time, hence three scopes to manage : short, medium and long term. Governance is medium term management, Adminance is long management, and Use is short term. The three of them should work together. However, ICANN is a system to prevent that joint effort from happening in order to protect medium term marketshares. Its natural (I do not think there is any plot) behaviour is therefore to delay issues to prevent the user influence and to hide long term issues to prevent politics to interfere. Short term marketshare have been delegated to registrars to keep users distant and long term marketshare has been allocated once for all to "industry" (ISOC + ISOC/IETF/IAB). A crippled ALAC is the natural way to help short term issues to be delayed into the ICANN influenced mid-term Governance. There is a coming time short-cut: the entrance of Lead Users in the adminance area through their own extended value Internet Use Interface technology providing an experience of smart Internet. This will be of interest for the future of the Internet and of its use/governance/adminance sequence. >At 12:19 16/10/2010, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >As Karl mentions, the RIR approach does not work in all policy >areas. The DNS, for example, attracts very diverse and antagonistic >interests. While the RIRs have every reason to be happy that there >"narrow subject area" approach works out for the address space, I >don't think one can generalize this as a model for all IG related areas. hmm ! RIR benefit from a narrowed subject area due to ICANN screening of future. The US "DNS" delegation is about Class IN and IP addressing. Who is talking of the Use's need of local address global region(s) (IDv6, i.e. the ability to globally use local IPv6 extensions). This protects the IPv4 auction business. jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Oct 16 08:17:49 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 21:17:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <4CB97C3A.7080402@wzb.eu> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB680C4.1060301@cavebear.com> <0FC5A53B-652C-48C9-8B70-EB5C9681849D@arin.net> <4CB97C3A.7080402@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > On 14.10.2010 16:51, John Curran wrote: >> >> On Oct 14, 2010, at 12:02 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: >>> >>> It has long been my sense that one of the ways we can improve our >>> approach to internet governance is to divide our goals so that we can shrink >>> wrap a narrowly tailored, tightly defined body of governance around each one >>> of those goals.  We would find, I assert, that in many cases that the >>> "governance" of an issue would be largely a clerical matter that rarely, if >>> ever would cause debate or concern - consider for instance most of the >>> protocol parameter assignments made by IANA.  There would, of course, be a >>> few nuggets, such as TLD policy, that would be real hard to handle; but they >>> would be easier to handle then the kind of generalized, expansive >>> policymaking that has so bedeviled ICANN. >> >> 100% agreement here. Having a group focused on fairly narrow subject >> area encourages discussion of the actual issues (both pro&  con) of >> proposed policy, which in turns empowers all voices which can add >> to the deliberations and help the group reach informed consensus. >> >> /John > > As Karl mentions, the RIR approach does not work in all policy areas. The > DNS, for example, attracts very diverse and antagonistic interests. While > the RIRs have every reason to be happy that there "narrow subject area" > approach works out for the address space, I don't think one can generalize > this as a model for all IG related areas. > I think it's interesting we think so highly of the RIR process (I do, so this isn't intended as particular criticism) when IPv4/v6 transition is such an enormous threat, some governments are obviously still extremely wary of the of the RIR model, and the RIRs are spending so much energy on outreach to govt., outreach that's still probably too little and too late. Adam > jeanette >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 16 08:43:01 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:43:01 +0300 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB680C4.1060301@cavebear.com> <0FC5A53B-652C-48C9-8B70-EB5C9681849D@arin.net> <4CB97C3A.7080402@wzb.eu> Message-ID: adam, the RIRs have been pushing IPv6 out thier doors for a decade now, so delays in the transition cant really be laid at their feet. They are simply registries, they dont have omniscient abilities to get folk to do something that they dont seem to want to do. BTW, the outreach started nearly a decade ago as well, and judging by the number of government reps at ARIN 26 who took part in the decision making processes as reps of govt, it seems to be bearing fruit. Rgds, McTim On 10/16/10, Adam Peake wrote: > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> >> On 14.10.2010 16:51, John Curran wrote: >>> >>> On Oct 14, 2010, at 12:02 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: >>>> >>>> It has long been my sense that one of the ways we can improve our >>>> approach to internet governance is to divide our goals so that we can >>>> shrink >>>> wrap a narrowly tailored, tightly defined body of governance around each >>>> one >>>> of those goals.  We would find, I assert, that in many cases that the >>>> "governance" of an issue would be largely a clerical matter that rarely, >>>> if >>>> ever would cause debate or concern - consider for instance most of the >>>> protocol parameter assignments made by IANA.  There would, of course, be >>>> a >>>> few nuggets, such as TLD policy, that would be real hard to handle; but >>>> they >>>> would be easier to handle then the kind of generalized, expansive >>>> policymaking that has so bedeviled ICANN. >>> >>> 100% agreement here. Having a group focused on fairly narrow subject >>> area encourages discussion of the actual issues (both pro&  con) of >>> proposed policy, which in turns empowers all voices which can add >>> to the deliberations and help the group reach informed consensus. >>> >>> /John >> >> As Karl mentions, the RIR approach does not work in all policy areas. The >> DNS, for example, attracts very diverse and antagonistic interests. While >> the RIRs have every reason to be happy that there "narrow subject area" >> approach works out for the address space, I don't think one can generalize >> this as a model for all IG related areas. >> > > I think it's interesting we think so highly of the RIR process (I do, > so this isn't intended as particular criticism) when IPv4/v6 > transition is such an enormous threat, some governments are obviously > still extremely wary of the of the RIR model, and the RIRs are > spending so much energy on outreach to govt., outreach that's still > probably too little and too late. > > Adam > > > >> jeanette >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Sent from my mobile device Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Sat Oct 16 09:38:12 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 09:38:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: <4CB97C3A.7080402@wzb.eu> References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB680C4.1060301@cavebear.com> <0FC5A53B-652C-48C9-8B70-EB5C9681849D@arin.net> <4CB97C3A.7080402@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <179D1325-AF25-4AF0-B447-175D859DA482@arin.net> On Oct 16, 2010, at 6:19 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > As Karl mentions, the RIR approach does not work in all policy areas. > The DNS, for example, attracts very diverse and antagonistic interests. > While the RIRs have every reason to be happy that there "narrow subject > area" approach works out for the address space, I don't think one can > generalize this as a model for all IG related areas. The "RIR approach" is probably a misnomer, because it's actually the "Supporting Organization approach" per original ICANN Bylaws. It has a Board which is primarily focused on organization matters and openness of the policy formation process, and supporting organizations (DNS, Address, and Protocol) which "shall be delegated the primary responsibility for developing and recommending substantive policies and procedures regarding those matters within their individual scope" While I agree that the DNS realm attracts more diverse interests, there is no evidence that holding focused issued-based deliberations for policy development (combined with a mandatory need to achieve consensus to recommend to the Board) would not have resulted in successful outcomes. Alas, we never really gave that model a try when it came to the DNS realm, as the ICANN Board threw itself into adjudicating new DNS policy matters directly from day one. /John (solely my personal opinions) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Sat Oct 16 19:00:02 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 08:00:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for comments In-Reply-To: <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear List, Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced cooperation consultations. While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make it sort of joint statement, we like to first ask our IGC members to discuss about this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few days if that is feasible. Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of course we welcome your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other stakeholders as well. Thank you, Jeremy and Izumi His Excellency Sha Zukang Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs United Nations 3 United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017 Your Excellency, Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities." In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires.  Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all non-governmental stakeholders. In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle established at the World Summit on the Information Society that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations." We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. END -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Oct 16 23:07:46 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 13:07:46 +1000 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Excellent text! Has my support. > From: Izumi Aizu > Reply-To: , Izumi Aizu > Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 08:00:02 +0900 > To: > Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for comments > > Dear List, > > Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus > proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced > cooperation consultations. > > While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make it > sort of joint statement, we like to first ask our IGC members to discuss about > this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few days if > that > is feasible. > > Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of course we > welcome > your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other > stakeholders as well. > > Thank you, > > Jeremy and Izumi > > His Excellency Sha Zukang > Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs > United Nations > 3 United Nations Plaza > New York, NY 10017 > > Your Excellency, > Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil > society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to > participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. > > Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the > letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive > consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with > a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect > of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... > through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their > respective roles and responsibilities." > > In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for > New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC > resolution requires.  Specifically, we were surprised that > non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written > contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during > the consultations to summarize the contributions of all > non-governmental stakeholders. > > In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive > consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an > intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle > established at the World Summit on the Information Society that "The > international management of the Internet should be multilateral, > transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, > the private sector, civil society and international organizations." > > We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the > participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this > consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the > United Nations complex in New York. > Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide > and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, > the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, > perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance > Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. > Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of > Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised > above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. > > END > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it Sun Oct 17 02:09:34 2010 From: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it (Stefano Trumpy) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 08:09:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for In-Reply-To: References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> Message-ID: At 8:00 +0900 17-10-2010, Izumi AIZU wrote: >Dear List, > >Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus >proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced >cooperation consultations. > >While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make it >sort of joint statement, we like to first ask our IGC members to discuss about >this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few >days if that >is feasible. > >Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of course >we welcome >your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other >stakeholders as well. > >Thank you, > >Jeremy and Izumi Very well stated; I support the text. Stefano Trumpy > >His Excellency Sha Zukang >Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs >United Nations >3 United Nations Plaza >New York, NY 10017 > >Your Excellency, >Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil >society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to >participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. > >Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the >letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive >consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with >a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect >of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... >through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their >respective roles and responsibilities." > >In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for >New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC >resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that >non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written >contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during >the consultations to summarize the contributions of all >non-governmental stakeholders. > >In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive >consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an >intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle >established at the World Summit on the Information Society that "The >international management of the Internet should be multilateral, >transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, >the private sector, civil society and international organizations." > >We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the >participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this >consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the >United Nations complex in New York. >Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide >and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, >the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, >perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance >Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. >Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of >Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised >above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. > >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 >Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" >X-Attachment-Id: 4f33654d09dd92b8_0.1 > >Attachment converted: TRUMPY:smime 11.p7s ( / ) (001DB199) -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ing. Stefano TRUMPY CNR - Istituto di Informatica e Telematica Phone: +39 050 3152634 Mobile: +39 348 8218618 E-mail: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sun Oct 17 04:34:42 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 10:34:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for In-Reply-To: References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <0135F4A3-C76A-40C1-A23D-889FE18C2E3B@graduateinstitute.ch> On Oct 17, 2010, at 8:09 AM, Stefano Trumpy wrote: > Very well stated; I support the text. > Stefano Trumpy +1 BTW interesting piece in today's NYT on MS & CS….http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/world/17russia.html?hpw 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Oct 17 05:19:44 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 16:19:44 +0700 Subject: [governance] New nominating committee Message-ID: <80BCFD8C-9AFD-462F-BF66-4B3430E542DE@ciroap.org> I have just drawn the new nominating committee, according to the process in RFC 3979 as specified in our Charter. The new committee is: #12 Ian Peter #23 Qusai Al-Shatti #9 Gurumurthy K #11 Hempal Shrestha #14 Jacquiline Morris If any of these is unavailable, we have #8 Ginger Paque, #7 Fearghas McKay and #2 AHM Bazlur Rahman as backups. Congratulations to these volunteers. Izumi and I will write to them separately about appointing a chair and commencing their work. If you would like to replicate the results yourself, and you know your way around a computer, you can. If you are running Linux, this will work out of the box. If you have Mac OS X, you need to install the Developer Tools from your original operating system DVD. If you have Windows, you need to install Cygwin from http://www.cygwin.com/. 1. First take the list of nominees that I posted to the list earlier (archived at http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-10/msg00150.html). Actually you don't need this except for reference. Assume that they are numbered from 1 to 28. 2. Copy the source code out of RFC 3979 (at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3797.txt, or any of its mirrors) and save it as a text file called (say) "pvrs.c" (without a ".txt" extension, if your operating system will let you). You also need to save global.h, MD5.h and md5c.c from RFC 1321 (at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1321.txt). To save you some time, I can send you the source code files and you can compare them to those in the RFCs. 3. Get yourself a console window. If you use Linux you probably know how to do this already; under Mac OS X you'll find Terminal.app in the Applications/Utilities folder, and on most versions of Windows the easiest way is to click Start, Run, and type "cmd". 4. Go to where you saved the source code files (using the "cd" command followed by the path to where you saved them), and type "gcc -o pers md5c.c pvrs.c". You'll get some harmless warnings, but if all went well, you should also have a new executable file called pvrs. 5. Run this program using "./pvrs" (or just "pvrs" on Windows). When prompted type "28" for the number of volunteers in the pool, and "5" (or "8") for the number we want to select. 6. Then enter the results of the 16 October lotteries in this order, one set of numbers per line (don't enter the Web site addresses, but do use them for verification of the numbers): http://www.lotto.ie 1 13 15 24 40 45 36 http://www.national-lottery.co.uk 6 30 34 38 45 48 32 http://www.powerball.com* 11 12 15 16 28 11 * This site seems only accessible within the USA, but try http://www.usamega.com. 7. Type "end" to end, and the program should return the results given above. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Oct 17 05:58:54 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 18:58:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for In-Reply-To: References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I support the statement. But I think he can be addressed as Mr. Sha Zukang rather than H.E. Adam >Dear List, > >Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus >proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced >cooperation consultations. > >While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make it >sort of joint statement, we like to first ask our IGC members to discuss about >this and, given short time, call for [rough] >consensus within a few days if that >is feasible. > >Please be specific to the wording as much as >possible. And of course we welcome >your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other >stakeholders as well. > >Thank you, > >Jeremy and Izumi > >His Excellency Sha Zukang >Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs >United Nations >3 United Nations Plaza >New York, NY 10017 > >Your Excellency, >Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil >society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to >participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. > >Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the >letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive >consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with >a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect >of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... >through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their >respective roles and responsibilities." > >In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for >New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC >resolution requires.  Specifically, we were surprised that >non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written >contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during >the consultations to summarize the contributions of all >non-governmental stakeholders. > >In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive >consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an >intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle >established at the World Summit on the Information Society that "The >international management of the Internet should be multilateral, >transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, >the private sector, civil society and international organizations." > >We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the >participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this >consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the >United Nations complex in New York. >Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide >and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, >the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, >perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance >Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. >Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of >Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised >above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. > >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 >Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" >X-Attachment-Id: 4f33654d09dd92b8_0.1 > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:smime 13.p7s ( / ) (0080389E) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 17 06:17:38 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 19:17:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB680C4.1060301@cavebear.com> <0FC5A53B-652C-48C9-8B70-EB5C9681849D@arin.net> <4CB97C3A.7080402@wzb.eu> Message-ID: >adam, the RIRs have been pushing IPv6 out thier doors for a decade >now, so delays in the transition cant really be laid at their feet. >They are simply registries, they dont have omniscient abilities to get >folk to do something that they dont seem to want to do. BTW, the >outreach started nearly a decade ago as well, and judging by the >number of government reps at ARIN 26 who took part in the decision >making processes as reps of govt, it seems to be bearing fruit. McTim, Hi. am I looking in the wrong place? Adam >Rgds, >McTim > >On 10/16/10, Adam Peake wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 14.10.2010 16:51, John Curran wrote: >>>> >>>> On Oct 14, 2010, at 12:02 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It has long been my sense that one of the ways we can improve our >>>>> approach to internet governance is to divide our goals so that we can >>>>> shrink >>>>> wrap a narrowly tailored, tightly defined body of governance around each >>>>> one >>>>> of those goals.  We would find, I assert, that in many cases that the >>>>> "governance" of an issue would be largely a clerical matter that rarely, >>>>> if >>>>> ever would cause debate or concern - consider for instance most of the >>>>> protocol parameter assignments made by IANA.  There would, of course, be >>>>> a >>>>> few nuggets, such as TLD policy, that would be real hard to handle; but >>>>> they >>>>> would be easier to handle then the kind of generalized, expansive >>>>> policymaking that has so bedeviled ICANN. >>>> >>>> 100% agreement here. Having a group focused on fairly narrow subject >>>> area encourages discussion of the actual issues (both pro&  con) of >>>> proposed policy, which in turns empowers all voices which can add >>>> to the deliberations and help the group reach informed consensus. >>>> >>>> /John >>> >>> As Karl mentions, the RIR approach does not work in all policy areas. The >>> DNS, for example, attracts very diverse and antagonistic interests. While >>> the RIRs have every reason to be happy that there "narrow subject area" >>> approach works out for the address space, I don't think one can generalize >>> this as a model for all IG related areas. >>> >> >> I think it's interesting we think so highly of the RIR process (I do, >> so this isn't intended as particular criticism) when IPv4/v6 >> transition is such an enormous threat, some governments are obviously >> still extremely wary of the of the RIR model, and the RIRs are >> spending so much energy on outreach to govt., outreach that's still >> probably too little and too late. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> jeanette >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>  governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>  governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>  http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>  governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>  governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>  http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >-- >Sent from my mobile device > >Cheers, > >McTim >"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Oct 17 06:31:39 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 15:31:39 +0500 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I recommend that we should be also copying this letter to the following heads by clearing mentioning the also copied to: Co-ordinator IGF Secretariat Chairman UNCSTD The head of UN ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council)? Would you like this to also be shared with the MAG so that message is distributed across all...? Best Fouad On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Excellent text! Has my support. > > > > > > >> From: Izumi Aizu >> Reply-To: , Izumi Aizu >> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 08:00:02 +0900 >> To: >> Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for comments >> >> Dear List, >> >> Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus >> proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced >> cooperation consultations. >> >> While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make it >> sort of joint statement, we like to first ask our IGC members to discuss about >> this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few days if >> that >> is feasible. >> >> Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of course we >> welcome >> your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other >> stakeholders as well. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Jeremy and Izumi >> >> His Excellency Sha Zukang >> Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs >> United Nations >> 3 United Nations Plaza >> New York, NY 10017 >> >> Your Excellency, >> Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil >> society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to >> participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. >> >> Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the >> letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive >> consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with >> a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect >> of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... >> through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their >> respective roles and responsibilities." >> >> In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for >> New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC >> resolution requires.  Specifically, we were surprised that >> non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written >> contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during >> the consultations to summarize the contributions of all >> non-governmental stakeholders. >> >> In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive >> consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an >> intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle >> established at the World Summit on the Information Society that "The >> international management of the Internet should be multilateral, >> transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, >> the private sector, civil society and international organizations." >> >> We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the >> participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this >> consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the >> United Nations complex in New York. >> Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide >> and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, >> the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, >> perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance >> Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. >> Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of >> Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised >> above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. >> >> END >> -- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 17 06:55:35 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 19:55:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >I recommend that we should be also copying this letter to the >following heads by clearing mentioning the also copied to: > >Co-ordinator IGF Secretariat >Chairman UNCSTD >The head of UN ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council)? > >Would you like this to also be shared with the MAG so that message is >distributed across all...? I think it would be best to work out a strategy (if there's to be one) with private sector and Internet tech community before thinking about involving the MAG. Not really a matter for the IGF directly. Adam >Best > >Fouad > >On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Excellent text! Has my support. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> From: Izumi Aizu >>> Reply-To: , Izumi Aizu >>> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 08:00:02 +0900 >>> To: >>> Subject: [governance] Draft letter to >>>Under-Secretary-General Sha for comments >>> >>> Dear List, >>> >>> Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus >>> proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced >>> cooperation consultations. >>> >>> While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make it >>> sort of joint statement, we like to first ask >>>our IGC members to discuss about >>> this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few days if >>> that >>> is feasible. >>> >>> Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of course we >>> welcome >>> your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other >>> stakeholders as well. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Jeremy and Izumi >>> >>> His Excellency Sha Zukang >>> Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs >>> United Nations >>> 3 United Nations Plaza >>> New York, NY 10017 >>> >>> Your Excellency, >>> Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil >>> society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to >>> participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. >>> >>> Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the >>> letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive >>> consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with >>> a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect >>> of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... >>> through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their >>> respective roles and responsibilities." >>> >>> In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for >>> New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC >>> resolution requires.  Specifically, we were surprised that >>> non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written >>> contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during >>> the consultations to summarize the contributions of all >>> non-governmental stakeholders. >>> >>> In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive >>> consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an >>> intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle >>> established at the World Summit on the Information Society that "The >>> international management of the Internet should be multilateral, >>> transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, >>> the private sector, civil society and international organizations." >>> >>> We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the >>> participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this >>> consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the >>> United Nations complex in New York. >>> Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide >>> and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, >>> the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, >>> perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance > >> Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. >>> Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of >>> Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised >>> above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. >>> >>> END >>> -- >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>  governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>  governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>  http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Oct 17 07:18:38 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 07:18:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB680C4.1060301@cavebear.com> <0FC5A53B-652C-48C9-8B70-EB5C9681849D@arin.net> <4CB97C3A.7080402@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On Oct 17, 2010, at 6:17 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> adam, the RIRs have been pushing IPv6 out thier doors for a decade >> now, so delays in the transition cant really be laid at their feet. >> They are simply registries, they dont have omniscient abilities to get >> folk to do something that they dont seem to want to do. BTW, the >> outreach started nearly a decade ago as well, and judging by the >> number of government reps at ARIN 26 who took part in the decision >> making processes as reps of govt, it seems to be bearing fruit. > > McTim, Hi. > am I looking in the wrong place? That would depend... What exactly are you looking for? /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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Oct 17 07:52:34 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 20:52:34 +0900 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB680C4.1060301@cavebear.com> <0FC5A53B-652C-48C9-8B70-EB5C9681849D@arin.net> <4CB97C3A.7080402@wzb.eu> Message-ID: >On Oct 17, 2010, at 6:17 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >>> adam, the RIRs have been pushing IPv6 out thier doors for a decade >>> now, so delays in the transition cant really be laid at their feet. >>> They are simply registries, they dont have omniscient abilities to get >>> folk to do something that they dont seem to want to do. BTW, the >>> outreach started nearly a decade ago as well, and judging by the > >> number of government reps at ARIN 26 who took part in the decision >>> making processes as reps of govt, it seems to be bearing fruit. >> >> McTim, Hi. >> >> >>am I looking in the wrong place? > >That would depend... What exactly are you looking for? The number of government reps participating in ARIN 26. Adam >/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 jcurran at arin.net Sun Oct 17 08:04:20 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 08:04:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU vs. ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <8B921DAB-5EA2-4EED-BD07-2A35E58A527D@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0725D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA517@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BD26024-4E15-43EA-B87D-EBDE09AEF018@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA523@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB4CCB9.6060201@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70ABB5AA56B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CB680C4.1060301@cavebear.com> <0FC5A53B-652C-48C9-8B70-EB5C9681849D@arin.net> <4CB97C3A.7080402@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4150CF1F-40E5-4BAE-9B03-6A85C0157B12@arin.net> On Oct 17, 2010, at 7:52 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> On Oct 17, 2010, at 6:17 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>>> adam, the RIRs have been pushing IPv6 out thier doors for a decade >>>> now, so delays in the transition cant really be laid at their feet. >>>> They are simply registries, they dont have omniscient abilities to get >>>> folk to do something that they dont seem to want to do. BTW, the >>>> outreach started nearly a decade ago as well, and judging by the >> >> number of government reps at ARIN 26 who took part in the decision >>>> making processes as reps of govt, it seems to be bearing fruit. >>> >>> McTim, Hi. >>> am I looking in the wrong place? >> >> That would depend... What exactly are you looking for? > > The number of government reps participating in ARIN 26. Yes, that is the list. ARIN 26 attendance is not typical, as the ITU Plenipotentiary is underway at the same time, and many of the typical government attendees must be down in Guadalajara Mexico, during this time along with ARIN outreach staff. It is true that many governments are unaware of the registry system, despite our outreach in places such as IGF, ITU, and WSIS; the lack of past government involvement has been considered a sign of success, but it may have the unfortunate side effect of leaving the system more exposed to interlopers than desirable. ARIN took the action of reaching out with educational materials to every ITU member in its region prior to Plenipot, but that is far more challenging in other parts of the globe. /John____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Sun Oct 17 12:02:50 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 18:02:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for In-Reply-To: <0135F4A3-C76A-40C1-A23D-889FE18C2E3B@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> <0135F4A3-C76A-40C1-A23D-889FE18C2E3B@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4994555.85551.1287331370488.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j26> Dear Bill and all Exerpt from the NYT article Why did the NYT miss Cisco in its quotation ? They "adapted" their network equipment to meet China's particular "democratic routing criteria". I do hope that it was just an oversight, nothing to do with some advertising revenues risks ... Best Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT > Message du 17/10/10 10:34 > De : "William Drake" > A : "Governance List" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for > > > > On Oct 17, 2010, at 8:09 AM, Stefano Trumpy wrote: > > > Very well stated; I support the text. > > Stefano Trumpy > > > +1 > > BTW interesting piece in today's NYT on MS & CS….http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/world/17russia.html?hpw > > Bill > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Oct 17 11:23:54 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 10:53:54 -0430 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for In-Reply-To: References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4CBB150A.4010406@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 Oct 17 15:13:53 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 15:13:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for In-Reply-To: <4CBB150A.4010406@gmail.com> References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> ,<4CBB150A.4010406@gmail.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF406@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> mine too Lee ________________________________________ From: Ginger Paque [gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 11:23 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU Subject: Re: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for Great job. Thank you. This letter has my support. Best, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IGCBP Online Coordinator DiploFoundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig The latest from Diplo... http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments. On 10/16/2010 6:30 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: Dear List, Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced cooperation consultations. While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make it sort of joint statement, we like to first ask our IGC members to discuss about this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few days if that is feasible. Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of course we welcome your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other stakeholders as well. Thank you, Jeremy and Izumi His Excellency Sha Zukang Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs United Nations 3 United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017 Your Excellency, Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities." In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all non-governmental stakeholders. In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle established at the World Summit on the Information Society that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations." We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. END -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Sun Oct 17 16:22:27 2010 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:22:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for In-Reply-To: References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4CBB5B03.6010107@gmx.net> Excellent draft, quoting ECOSOC's text. How is the communication with ICC and ISOC going? This should not restrain us to move ahead with the draft here, in due time. Norbert Klein On 10/17/2010 01:00 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear List, > > Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus > proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced > cooperation consultations. > > While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make it > sort of joint statement, we like to first ask our IGC members to discuss about > this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few days if that > is feasible. > > Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of course we welcome > your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other > stakeholders as well. > > Thank you, > > Jeremy and Izumi > > His Excellency Sha Zukang > Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs > United Nations > 3 United Nations Plaza > New York, NY 10017 > ... [snip] -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English. This is the latest weekly editorial of The Mirror: The Influence of the Internet on Cambodia Sunday, 3.10.2010 http://tinyurl.com/32suhs5 (to read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new from time to time - at least every weekend: The NEW ADDRESS of The Mirror: http://www.cambodiamirror.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 shailam at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 18:58:52 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 15:58:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for In-Reply-To: <4CBB150A.4010406@gmail.com> References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> <4CBB150A.4010406@gmail.com> Message-ID: <773829.16480.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Great job Letter has my support shaila challenge the rules ...push the barriers.... ............live beyond your existential means !! ________________________________ From: Ginger Paque To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU Sent: Sun, October 17, 2010 8:23:54 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for Great job. Thank you. This letter has my support. Best, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IGCBP Online Coordinator DiploFoundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig The latest from Diplo... http://igbook.diplomacy.edu/is the online companion to An Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments. On 10/16/2010 6:30 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: Dear List, Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced cooperation consultations. While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make it sort of joint statement, we like to first ask our IGC members to discuss about this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few days if that is feasible. Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of course we welcome your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other stakeholders as well. Thank you, Jeremy and Izumi His Excellency Sha Zukang Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs United Nations 3 United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017 Your Excellency, Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities." In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all non-governmental stakeholders. In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle established at the World Summit on the Information Society that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations." We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. END -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Oct 17 20:11:08 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 07:11:08 +0700 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for In-Reply-To: <4CBB5B03.6010107@gmx.net> References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> <4CBB5B03.6010107@gmx.net> Message-ID: <0FB30288-5688-433F-A8D5-5FE08A68C510@ciroap.org> On 18/10/2010, at 3:22 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: > How is the communication with ICC and ISOC going? This should not > restrain us to move ahead with the draft here, in due time. Still waiting to hear back, but from both parties the sense is positive. I don't think we'll have to wait long. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Oct 18 00:34:25 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:04:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for In-Reply-To: <4994555.85551.1287331370488.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j26> References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> <0135F4A3-C76A-40C1-A23D-889FE18C2E3B@graduateinstitute.ch> <4994555.85551.1287331370488.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j26> Message-ID: <4CBBCE51.7080900@itforchange.net> On Sunday 17 October 2010 09:32 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > Dear Bill and all > > Exerpt from the NYT article > including Microsoft, Yahoo > > and Google > , > which have grappled with the country’s Internet censorship, and it > appears that Microsoft is hoping to avoid new controversies there. > > > Why did the NYT miss Cisco in its quotation ? They "adapted" their > network equipment to meet China's particular "democratic routing > criteria". > I do hope that it was just an oversight, nothing to do with some > advertising revenues risks ... Apart from the stated issues, and their merit, also try reading the article that Bill posted ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/world/17russia.html?hpw ) in light of the following piece on the geo-politics of digital activism. I greatly recommend this article to everyone, one of the best takes I have come across on this issue. The Internet Freedom Fallacy and the Arab Digital Activism, by Sami Ben Gharbia http://samibengharbia.com/2010/09/17/the-internet-freedom-fallacy-and-the-arab-digital-activism/ The eco-political juggernaut being created by the North/ West is a issue that needs much more critical analysis than it often gets, even from the civil society actors in Internet/ IG area who come from the geo-political South. Parminder > > Best > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > CSDPTT > > > > > Message du 17/10/10 10:34 > > De : "William Drake" > > A : "Governance List" > > Copie à : > > Objet : Re: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General > Sha for > > > > > > > > On Oct 17, 2010, at 8:09 AM, Stefano Trumpy wrote: > > > > > Very well stated; I support the text. > > > Stefano Trumpy > > > > > > +1 > > > > BTW interesting piece in today's NYT on MS & > CS….http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/world/17russia.html?hpw > > > > Bill > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Oct 18 04:33:33 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:33:33 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [kictanet] Search for a Chief Executive Secretary for the GAC Secretariat of ICANN Message-ID: This might be of interest to someone. Adam >From: Alice Munyua >Organization: Association for Progressive Communication (APC) >Subject: [kictanet] Search for a Chief Executive Secretary for the GAC > Secretariat of ICANN > >(Apologies for cross posting) > >See below opportunity with ICANN's Government Advisory Committee > >best > >alice > >------------------- > >Announcement > >The mission of The Internet Corporation for >Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is to >coordinate, at the top level, the global >Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in >particular to ensure the stable and secure >operation of the Internet's unique identifier >systems. It does so in close interaction with >many stakeholder representations. ICANN receives >input from governments through the Governmental >Advisory Committee (GAC). The GAC¹s key role is >to provide advice to ICANN on issues of public >policy. > >GAC is supported by the GAC Secretariat, so far >rotating with periods of about five years. It is >currently hosted by India and approaching the >end of India¹s commitment (mid 2011). In >response to the growing demands on the GAC in >terms of safeguarding the public interest and >enhancing transparency and accountability of >ICANN, three member countries -Brazil, The >Netherlands and Norway - took the initiative to >finance and host a Secretariat for the next >period of 5 years. The initial funding countries >will put in place a lean and flexible >Secretariat providing professional and proactive >support to the membership with continued support >from ICANN. > >For this, the Secretariat will comprise a Chief >Executive Secretary, a Senior Advisor, and an >Office Manager to ensure continuity of support >and knowledge development of the GAC. This team >will work closely with ICANN who will continue >its general support to the GAC. The Secretariat >will be located in the Netherlands, and a start >is foreseen between the 1st of January 2011 and >the 41st ICANN/GAC meeting in San Francisco in >June 2011, to which the team is expected to >participate in its functioning capacity. > >We seek a Chief Executive Secretary > >The GAC Secretariat will be managed by the Chief >Executive Secretary (CES), responsible for the >day- to-day management. The main tasks of the >Chief Executive Secretary will be to assist the >GAC Chair in developing and preparing the agenda >and liaising with GAC Members, ICANN, and other >ICANN communities. >The CES will be held accountable for the >functioning of the Secretariat. When GAC >guidance is needed in between GAC meetings which >are held three times a year, the Executive >Secretary will seek instructions from the GAC >Chair and co-chairs. While being able to >function independently, the CES will work >closely with the GAC chair in progressing the >GAC¹s work program. > > >Requirements > >We are looking for somebody with adequate >seniority having proven experience with public >policy development in ICT¹s and internet. He/she >should be familiar with the role, functions and >procedures of ICANN and should be able to move >and act easily in the wider ICANN community. >There should be a right balance between >seniority and serving capacity. The CES should >be a bridge builder between communities and have >senior communicative and analytical capacities, >and ensure execution of the operational work; >making notes, writing papers, etc. > >Announcement Chief Executive Secretary position >GAC Secretariat, 14 October 2010, page 1/3 >The following requirements are highly desirable >and will be explicitly considered when comparing >candidates: > >1. An advanced university degree; master¹s degree or equivalent >2. At least 5 years of professional >experience in the field of Internet matters, >including at least 3 years of relevant practical >experience in the subject matters related to >ICANN meetings and agreements; >3. At least 5 years of professional >experience in working for or with Public >Administrations, and demonstrated understanding >of and interest in public policy issues; >4. Excellent knowledge of Internet policy, >and a good understanding of economic, >international legal, and technical issues >relating the Internet and Internet governance; >5. Ability to work in English, including the >ability to write accurately, concisely and >quickly, as this is the working language of the >GAC. Knowledge of a wider range of working >languages would be an asset; >6. Excellent communication and presentation skills; >7. Ability to work independently and to >co-operate with others in a diverse >international setting; >8. Proven ability to manage and stimulate >effectively the work of other professionals in a >small team, and experience with contracting and >managing additional service providers, for >instance for specific analytic work, up and >beyond working with the core staff; >9. Demonstrated interest for the advancement >of prospective member countries and new member >countries, in particular interest and ability to >work with government officials with the aim of >getting them up to speed in the ICANN >environment; >10. Demonstrated interest and sense of international public service. > >What do we offer > >A challenging opportunity to help shape >professional support to the GAC in times of >change in the landscape of Internet governance. >The Chief Executive Secretary (CES) will not >stand alone in her/his work. Initially, two more >positions are to be filled in to work under >responsibility of the CES. The Secretariat will >be hosted by TNO in her offices in Delft, the >Netherlands, about a half hour travel from >Amsterdam Schiphol airport. TNO is the largest >independent, not for profit, applied research >organization in the Netherlands with 4.500 >employees and 30 knowledge centers. The hosting >facilities include housing, HR, IT and financial >administrative support. > >More specifically: > >The contract will initially be for two years, >with the option of prolongation; Dutch labor law >will apply to the fullest extent, and excellent >labour conditions will be offered, including >support for temporary housing and/or relocation >­ the latter includes both assistance in finding >appropriate housing and covering of relocation >expenses; Indication of remuneration: between >85,000 and 120,000 US$ per annum >Announcement Chief Executive Secretary position >GAC Secretariat, 14 October 2010, > >Submitting your application > >We invite you to respond when you feel this >challenge is exactly what you want in life now, >and when you are prepared to dedicate the coming >two to three years to help set up and run the >Secretariat in the way described above, and when >you are prepared to move to The Netherlands for >doing so. Your application should include your >contact details, motivation to apply, CV, and >appropriate references, in PDF, and should be >sent to >info at gnksconsult.com >at the latest by Friday 12th of November, 2010. >Your application will be handled in confidence >and discreetly, with the greatest care and >taking into account the European Data Protection >regulations. A background check will be carried >out as part of the application procedure, for >the final candidates. Requests for additional >information should also be send to >info at gnksconsult.com. >Announcement Chief Executive Secretary position >GAC Secretariat, 14 October 2010, > >_______________________________________________ >kictanet mailing list >kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke >http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: CES for GAC 14 oct 2010.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 57580 bytes Desc: not available URL: From email at hakik.org Mon Oct 18 06:38:17 2010 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:38:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha In-Reply-To: <773829.16480.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> <4CBB150A.4010406@gmail.com> <773829.16480.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20101018103852.A6B1190AF2@npogroups.org> Great job indeed! I support the letter. Best regards, Hakik Hakikur Rahman Chairman SchoolNet Foundation Bangladesh At 11:58 PM 10/17/2010, shaila mistry wrote: >Great job >Letter has my support >shaila > >challenge the rules ...push the barriers.... >............live beyond your existential means !! > > >From: Ginger Paque >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU >Sent: Sun, October 17, 2010 8:23:54 AM >Subject: Re: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for > >Great job. Thank you. This letter has my support. >Best, >Ginger > > >Ginger (Virginia) Paque >IGCBP Online Coordinator >DiploFoundation >www.diplomacy.edu/ig > >The latest from Diplo... >http://igbook.diplomacy.edu/is the >online companion to An Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's >publication on IG. Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments. > >On 10/16/2010 6:30 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >>Dear List, >> >>Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus >>proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced >>cooperation consultations. >> >>While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make it >>sort of joint statement, we like to first ask our IGC members to >>discuss about >>this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few >>days if that >>is feasible. >> >>Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of >>course we welcome >>your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other >>stakeholders as well. >> >>Thank you, >> >>Jeremy and Izumi >> >>His Excellency Sha Zukang >>Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs >>United Nations >>3 United Nations Plaza >>New York, NY 10017 >> >>Your Excellency, >>Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil >>society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to >>participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. >> >>Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the >>letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive >>consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with >>a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect >>of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... >>through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their >>respective roles and responsibilities." >> >>In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for >>New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC >>resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that >>non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written >>contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during >>the consultations to summarize the contributions of all >>non-governmental stakeholders. >> >>In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive >>consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an >>intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle >>established at the World Summit on the Information Society that "The >>international management of the Internet should be multilateral, >>transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, >>the private sector, civil society and international organizations." >> >>We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the >>participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this >>consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the >>United Nations complex in New York. >>Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide >>and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, >>the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, >>perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance >>Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. >>Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of >>Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised >>above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. >> >>END >>-- >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> >>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>Translate this email: >>http://translate.google.com/translate_t >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 18 06:58:23 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:58:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha In-Reply-To: <20101018103901.C311E90C42@npogroups.org> References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> <4CBB150A.4010406@gmail.com> <773829.16480.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <20101018103901.C311E90C42@npogroups.org> Message-ID: <4CBC284F.7040006@wzb.eu> I support the letter as well. Thank you for drafting it. jeanette On 18.10.2010 12:38, Hakikur Rahman wrote: > Great job indeed! I support the letter. > > Best regards, > Hakik > > > Hakikur Rahman > Chairman > SchoolNet Foundation Bangladesh > > > At 11:58 PM 10/17/2010, shaila mistry wrote: >> Great job >> Letter has my support >> shaila >> >> challenge the rules ...push the barriers.... >> ............live beyond your existential means !! >> >> >> *From:* Ginger Paque >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU >> *Sent:* Sun, October 17, 2010 8:23:54 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General >> Sha for >> >> Great job. Thank you. This letter has my support. >> Best, >> Ginger >> >> * >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> *IGCBP Online Coordinator >> DiploFoundation >> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >> >> *The latest from Diplo...* >> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu/is the online companion to /An >> Introduction to Internet Governance, /Diplo's publication on IG. >> Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments. >> >> On 10/16/2010 6:30 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>> >>> Dear List, >>> >>> Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus >>> proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced >>> cooperation consultations. >>> >>> While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make >>> it >>> sort of joint statement, we like to first ask our IGC members to discuss >>> about >>> this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few days >>> if that >>> is feasible. >>> >>> Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of course we >>> welcome >>> your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other >>> stakeholders as well. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Jeremy and Izumi >>> >>> His Excellency Sha Zukang >>> Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs >>> United Nations >>> 3 United Nations Plaza >>> New York, NY 10017 >>> >>> Your Excellency, >>> Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil >>> society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to >>> participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. >>> >>> Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the >>> letter explains that these are meant as"open and inclusive >>> consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with >>> a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect >>> of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... >>> through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their >>> respective roles and responsibilities." >>> >>> In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for >>> New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC >>> resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that >>> non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written >>> contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during >>> the consultations to summarize the contributions of all >>> non-governmental stakeholders. >>> >>> In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive >>> consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an >>> intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle >>> established at the World Summit on the Information Society that >>> "The >>> international management of the Internet should be multilateral, >>> transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, >>> the private sector, civil society and international organizations." >>> >>> We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the >>> participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this >>> consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the >>> United Nations complex in New York. >>> Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide >>> and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, >>> the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, >>> perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance >>> Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. >>> Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of >>> Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised >>> above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. >>> >>> END >>> -- >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> >>> >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> >>> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: >>> >>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 18 07:04:59 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:04:59 -0200 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for In-Reply-To: References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4CBC29DB.70606@cafonso.ca> Great, Izumi & Jeremy! Should be sent ASAP. frt rgds --c.a. On 10/16/2010 08:00 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear List, > > Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus > proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced > cooperation consultations. > > While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make it > sort of joint statement, we like to first ask our IGC members to discuss about > this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few days if that > is feasible. > > Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of course we welcome > your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other > stakeholders as well. > > Thank you, > > Jeremy and Izumi > > His Excellency Sha Zukang > Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs > United Nations > 3 United Nations Plaza > New York, NY 10017 > > Your Excellency, > Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil > society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to > participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. > > Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the > letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive > consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with > a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect > of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... > through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their > respective roles and responsibilities." > > In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for > New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC > resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that > non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written > contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during > the consultations to summarize the contributions of all > non-governmental stakeholders. > > In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive > consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an > intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle > established at the World Summit on the Information Society that "The > international management of the Internet should be multilateral, > transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, > the private sector, civil society and international organizations." > > We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the > participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this > consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the > United Nations complex in New York. > Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide > and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, > the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, > perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance > Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. > Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of > Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised > above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. > > 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 -- 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 anriette at apc.org Mon Oct 18 07:32:42 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:32:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha In-Reply-To: <4CBC284F.7040006@wzb.eu> References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> <4CBB150A.4010406@gmail.com> <773829.16480.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <20101018103901.C311E90C42@npogroups.org> <4CBC284F.7040006@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4CBC305A.9040604@apc.org> Thanks.. support from me too. Anriette On 18/10/10 12:58, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > I support the letter as well. Thank you for drafting 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Oct 18 09:10:59 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:10:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for In-Reply-To: <4CBC29DB.70606@cafonso.ca> References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> <4CBC29DB.70606@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Thank you for the drafting. I support the letter too. Deirdre On 18 October 2010 07:04, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Great, Izumi & Jeremy! Should be sent ASAP. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > > On 10/16/2010 08:00 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Dear List, >> >> Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus >> proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced >> cooperation consultations. >> >> While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make it >> sort of joint statement, we like to first ask our IGC members to discuss >> about >> this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few days >> if that >> is feasible. >> >> Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of course we >> welcome >> your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other >> stakeholders as well. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Jeremy and Izumi >> >> His Excellency Sha Zukang >> Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs >> United Nations >> 3 United Nations Plaza >> New York, NY 10017 >> >> Your Excellency, >> Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil >> society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to >> participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. >> >> Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the >> letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive >> consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with >> a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect >> of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... >> through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their >> respective roles and responsibilities." >> >> In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for >> New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC >> resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that >> non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written >> contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during >> the consultations to summarize the contributions of all >> non-governmental stakeholders. >> >> In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive >> consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an >> intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle >> established at the World Summit on the Information Society that "The >> international management of the Internet should be multilateral, >> transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, >> the private sector, civil society and international organizations." >> >> We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the >> participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this >> consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the >> United Nations complex in New York. >> Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide >> and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, >> the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, >> perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance >> Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. >> Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of >> Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised >> above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. >> >> 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 >> > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > CGI.br (www.cgi.br) > Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) > ==================================== > new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca > ==================================== > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Oct 18 09:18:39 2010 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:18:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for comments In-Reply-To: References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <749F673871FA4F2AB130E548E58F0A09@MTBJ> Well done ! I support it Thank you Izumi and Jeremy ------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Chairman of CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------ -----Message d'origine----- De : izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] De la part de Izumi AIZU Envoyé : dimanche 17 octobre 2010 00:00 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org Objet : [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for comments Dear List, Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced cooperation consultations. While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make it sort of joint statement, we like to first ask our IGC members to discuss about this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few days if that is feasible. Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of course we welcome your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other stakeholders as well. Thank you, Jeremy and Izumi His Excellency Sha Zukang Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs United Nations 3 United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017 Your Excellency, Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities." In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all non-governmental stakeholders. In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle established at the World Summit on the Information Society that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations." We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. END -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Oct 18 09:27:05 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:27:05 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> <749F673871FA4F2AB130E548E58F0A09@MTBJ> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A072B6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Clear to the point. Full support. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn] Gesendet: Mo 18.10.2010 15:18 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Izumi AIZU' Betreff: RE: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for comments Well done ! I support it Thank you Izumi and Jeremy ------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Chairman of CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------ -----Message d'origine----- De : izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] De la part de Izumi AIZU Envoyé : dimanche 17 octobre 2010 00:00 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org Objet : [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for comments Dear List, Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced cooperation consultations. While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make it sort of joint statement, we like to first ask our IGC members to discuss about this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few days if that is feasible. Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of course we welcome your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other stakeholders as well. Thank you, Jeremy and Izumi His Excellency Sha Zukang Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs United Nations 3 United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017 Your Excellency, Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet .... through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities." In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all non-governmental stakeholders. In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle established at the World Summit on the Information Society that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations." We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. END -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 09:56:12 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 06:56:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for Message-ID: <738846.40274.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I also agree with the contents of the draft, however with reference to the idea of Mr. Fouad (which I liked), would you please elaborate that: 1.    How do you segregate these matters from IGF-MAG as they are (supposed to be) advisory position for Secretary-General? MAG proposal or advises must have more weightages. 2.    When ICC & ISOC are being consulted for the sharing of thoughts, why not other MAG members are asked to generate opinion/consensus from the origins they belongs and they which they represent.   If you do not agree with the sharing of the document with MAG, even then the sharing of thoughts (with the team of official advisors) for obtaining their opinion is not a bad idea.   Thanking you and Best Regards   Imran Ahmed Shah   Founder & Executive Member Urdu Internet Society ________________________________ From: Adam Peake To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Sun, 17 October, 2010 15:55:35 Subject: Re: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for >I recommend that we should be also copying this letter to the >following heads by clearing mentioning the also copied to: > >Co-ordinator IGF Secretariat >Chairman UNCSTD >The head of UN ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council)? > >Would you like this to also be shared with the MAG so that message is >distributed across all...? I think it would be best to work out a strategy (if there's to be one) with private sector and Internet tech community before thinking about involving the MAG. Not really a matter for the IGF directly. Adam >Best > >Fouad > >On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>  Excellent text! Has my support. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>  From: Izumi Aizu >>>  Reply-To: , Izumi Aizu >>>  Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 08:00:02 +0900 >>>  To: >>>  Subject: [governance] Draft letter to >>>Under-Secretary-General Sha for comments >>> >>>  Dear List, >>> >>>  Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus >>>  proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced >>>  cooperation consultations. >>> >>>  While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make it >>>  sort of joint statement, we like to first ask >>>our IGC members to discuss about >>>  this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few days if >>>  that >>>  is feasible. >>> >>>  Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of course we >>>  welcome >>>  your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other >>>  stakeholders as well. >>> >>>  Thank you, >>> >>>  Jeremy and Izumi >>> >>>  His Excellency Sha Zukang >>>  Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs >>>  United Nations >>>  3 United Nations Plaza >>>  New York, NY 10017 >>> >>>  Your Excellency, >>>  Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil >>>  society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to >>>  participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. >>> >>>  Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the >>>  letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive >>>  consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with >>>  a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect >>>  of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... >>>  through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their >>>  respective roles and responsibilities." >>> >>>  In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for >>>  New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC >>>  resolution requires.  Specifically, we were surprised that >>>  non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written >>>  contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during >>>  the consultations to summarize the contributions of all >>>  non-governmental stakeholders. >>> >>>  In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive >>>  consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an >>>  intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle >>>  established at the World Summit on the Information Society that "The >>>  international management of the Internet should be multilateral, >>>  transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, >>>  the private sector, civil society and international organizations." >>> >>>  We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the >>>  participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this >>>  consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the >>>  United Nations complex in New York. >>>  Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide >>>  and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, >>>  the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, >>>  perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance >  >> Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. >>>  Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of >>>  Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised >>>  above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. >>> >>>  END >>>  -- >>>  ____________________________________________________________ >>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>  To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>  For all list information and functions, see: >>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >>  ____________________________________________________________ >>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >>  To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>  For all list information and functions, see: >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Mon Oct 18 11:03:26 2010 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:03:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for comments In-Reply-To: References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear Izumi Aizu: I support the draft letter. Thankyou and Regards, Christopher Wilkinson Chair, Internet Society European Chapters On 17 Oct 2010, at 01:00, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear List, > > Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus > proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced > cooperation consultations. > > While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to > make it > sort of joint statement, we like to first ask our IGC members to > discuss about > this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few > days if that > is feasible. > > Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of course > we welcome > your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other > stakeholders as well. > > Thank you, > > Jeremy and Izumi > > His Excellency Sha Zukang > Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs > United Nations > 3 United Nations Plaza > New York, NY 10017 > > Your Excellency, > Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil > society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to > participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. > > Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the > letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive > consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with > a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect > of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... > through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their > respective roles and responsibilities." > > In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for > New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC > resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that > non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written > contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during > the consultations to summarize the contributions of all > non-governmental stakeholders. > > In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive > consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an > intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle > established at the World Summit on the Information Society that "The > international management of the Internet should be multilateral, > transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, > the private sector, civil society and international organizations." > > We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the > participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this > consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the > United Nations complex in New York. > Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide > and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, > the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, > perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance > Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. > Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of > Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised > above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. > > END > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/ > translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon Oct 18 11:08:10 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 00:08:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for comments In-Reply-To: References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear all, Thank you for the warm support and good suggestions. We are keenly waiting for the response from ICC and ISOC, and right after receiving them (assuming them to come shortly), we like put the consensus call and then move forward. In the mean time, are there people going to Geneva consultation meeting in late November? I plan to, but it would be nice to coordinate our activities there in advance. Please let us know. Thanks, izumi 2010/10/19 CW Mail : > Dear Izumi Aizu: > > I support the draft letter. > > Thankyou and Regards, > > Christopher Wilkinson > Chair, Internet Society European Chapters > > > > On 17 Oct 2010, at 01:00, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Dear List, >> >> Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus >> proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced >> cooperation consultations. >> >> While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make it >> sort of joint statement, we like to first ask our IGC members to discuss >> about >> this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few days >> if that >> is feasible. >> >> Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of course we >> welcome >> your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other >> stakeholders as well. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Jeremy and Izumi >> >> His Excellency Sha Zukang >> Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs >> United Nations >> 3 United Nations Plaza >> New York, NY 10017 >> >> Your Excellency, >> Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil >> society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to >> participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. >> >> Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the >> letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive >> consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with >> a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect >> of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... >> through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their >> respective roles and responsibilities." >> >> In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for >> New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC >> resolution requires.  Specifically, we were surprised that >> non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written >> contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during >> the consultations to summarize the contributions of all >> non-governmental stakeholders. >> >> In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive >> consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an >> intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle >> established at the World Summit on the Information Society that "The >> international management of the Internet should be multilateral, >> transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, >> the private sector, civil society and international organizations." >> >> We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the >> participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this >> consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the >> United Nations complex in New York. >> Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide >> and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, >> the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, >> perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance >> Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. >> Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of >> Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised >> above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. >> >> 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 vanda at uol.com.br Mon Oct 18 11:09:23 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:09:23 -0200 Subject: RES: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for comments In-Reply-To: References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <005a01cb6ed6$8001cf10$80056d30$@uol.com.br> Clear statement Izumi. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464 -----Mensagem original----- De: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] Em nome de Izumi AIZU Enviada em: sábado, 16 de outubro de 2010 20:00 Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org Assunto: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for comments Dear List, Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced cooperation consultations. While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make it sort of joint statement, we like to first ask our IGC members to discuss about this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few days if that is feasible. Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of course we welcome your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other stakeholders as well. Thank you, Jeremy and Izumi His Excellency Sha Zukang Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs United Nations 3 United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017 Your Excellency, Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities." In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires.  Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all non-governmental stakeholders. In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle established at the World Summit on the Information Society that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations." We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. END -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Oct 18 11:47:56 2010 From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:47:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: AW: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for Message-ID: <852103.59201.qm@web25504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I do support it. Well done. Kwasi .............................................................................................................................. There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.            -- Benjamin Disraeli .............................................................................................................................. --- On Mon, 18/10/10, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Subject: AW: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Monday, 18 October, 2010, 14:27 Clear to the point. Full support. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn] Gesendet: Mo 18.10.2010 15:18 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Izumi AIZU' Betreff: RE: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for comments Well done !  I support it Thank you Izumi and Jeremy ------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Chairman of CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax     : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------ -----Message d'origine----- De : izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] De la part de Izumi AIZU Envoyé : dimanche 17 octobre 2010 00:00 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org Objet : [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for comments Dear List, Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced cooperation consultations. While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make it sort of joint statement, we like to first ask our IGC members to discuss about this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few days if that is feasible. Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of course we welcome your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other stakeholders as well. Thank you, Jeremy and Izumi His Excellency Sha Zukang Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs United Nations 3 United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017 Your Excellency, Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet .... through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities." In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires.  Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all non-governmental stakeholders. In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle established at the World Summit on the Information Society that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations." We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. END -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Oct 18 11:52:39 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:52:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for comments In-Reply-To: References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> Message-ID: dear all, I personally agree with the contents of this letter that deeply express our concerns. It is inconceivable that we could return to the starting point of all discussions that took place during the preparatory meetings for Phase 1 and 2 of the World Summit on the Information Society. I thanked us all for being supportive and to be constant, constructive and prudent in all mechanisms of disorientation in relation to the evolution of digital technology. The experience proved enough to the real civil society is that the IGC is not corruptible nor passive. We do not lower the bar any price. Let me express to all my sincere considerations. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) ACADEMIE DES TIC *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914 email: b.schombe at gmail.com blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2010/10/17 Izumi AIZU > Dear List, > > Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus > proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced > cooperation consultations. > > While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make it > sort of joint statement, we like to first ask our IGC members to discuss > about > this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few days if > that > is feasible. > > Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of course we > welcome > your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other > stakeholders as well. > > Thank you, > > Jeremy and Izumi > > His Excellency Sha Zukang > Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs > United Nations > 3 United Nations Plaza > New York, NY 10017 > > Your Excellency, > Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil > society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to > participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. > > Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the > letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive > consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with > a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect > of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... > through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their > respective roles and responsibilities." > > In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for > New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC > resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that > non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written > contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during > the consultations to summarize the contributions of all > non-governmental stakeholders. > > In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive > consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an > intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle > established at the World Summit on the Information Society that "The > international management of the Internet should be multilateral, > transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, > the private sector, civil society and international organizations." > > We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the > participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this > consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the > United Nations complex in New York. > Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide > and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, > the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, > perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance > Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. > Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of > Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised > above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. > > END > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Oct 18 12:18:59 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:18:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: CORRECT SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) ACADEMIE DES TIC *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914 email: b.schombe at gmail.com blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2010/10/17 Fouad Bajwa > I recommend that we should be also copying this letter to the > following heads by clearing mentioning the also copied to: > > Co-ordinator IGF Secretariat > Chairman UNCSTD > The head of UN ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council)? > > Would you like this to also be shared with the MAG so that message is > distributed across all...? > > Best > > Fouad > > On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Excellent text! Has my support. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> From: Izumi Aizu > >> Reply-To: , Izumi Aizu > >> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 08:00:02 +0900 > >> To: > >> Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for > comments > >> > >> Dear List, > >> > >> Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus > >> proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced > >> cooperation consultations. > >> > >> While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make > it > >> sort of joint statement, we like to first ask our IGC members to discuss > about > >> this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few days > if > >> that > >> is feasible. > >> > >> Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of course we > >> welcome > >> your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other > >> stakeholders as well. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> Jeremy and Izumi > >> > >> His Excellency Sha Zukang > >> Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs > >> United Nations > >> 3 United Nations Plaza > >> New York, NY 10017 > >> > >> Your Excellency, > >> Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil > >> society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to > >> participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. > >> > >> Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the > >> letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive > >> consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with > >> a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect > >> of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... > >> through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their > >> respective roles and responsibilities." > >> > >> In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for > >> New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC > >> resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that > >> non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written > >> contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during > >> the consultations to summarize the contributions of all > >> non-governmental stakeholders. > >> > >> In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive > >> consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an > >> intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle > >> established at the World Summit on the Information Society that "The > >> international management of the Internet should be multilateral, > >> transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, > >> the private sector, civil society and international organizations." > >> > >> We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the > >> participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this > >> consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the > >> United Nations complex in New York. > >> Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide > >> and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, > >> the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, > >> perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance > >> Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. > >> Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of > >> Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised > >> above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. > >> > >> END > >> -- > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Mon Oct 18 15:13:06 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:13:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011, 16 to 20 May Geneva Message-ID: <4CBC9C42.1080801@apc.org> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Invitation Letter: Preparatory Process for WSIS Forum 2011, 16 to 20 May Geneva Date: 18 Oct 2010 19:28:26 +0200 From: WSIS Team Reply-To: WSIS Team To: anriette at apc.org Dear WSIS Stakeholder, ITU, UNESCO, UNCTAD and UNDP are pleased to announce that based on the views submitted during the open consultations held from 10 August -12 September 2010, the WSIS Forum 2011 will be held in Geneva from the 16th -20th of May. In line with the participatory and inclusive spirit of the WSIS Forum 2011, an open consultation on the thematic focus of the Forum has been announced (starting from 15th October 2010). Please find attached the invitation letter for participating in the preparatory process for WSIS Forum 2011. The consultation is structured in four steps, we request you to follow the open consultation process at www.wsis.org/forum . We look forward to your active participation in the preparatory phase of the WSIS Forum 2011 and welcome all stakeholders to Geneva in May. Best wishes, WSIS Team -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Invitation Letter Preparatory Process for WSIS Forum 2011.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 249505 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Oct 18 15:51:09 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 01:21:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for comments In-Reply-To: References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear Izumi It is a very important communication. I support this letter. Sivasubramanian M On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > dear all, > > I personally agree with the contents of this letter that deeply express our > concerns. > It is inconceivable that we could return to the starting point of all > discussions that took place during the preparatory meetings for Phase 1 and > 2 of the World Summit on the Information Society. > > I thanked us all for being supportive and to be constant, constructive and > prudent in all mechanisms of disorientation in relation to the evolution of > digital technology. > > The experience proved enough to the real civil society is that the IGC is > not corruptible nor passive. > We do not lower the bar any price. > > Let me express to all my sincere considerations. > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) > ACADEMIE DES TIC > *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC > *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE > *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) > > Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914 > email: b.schombe at gmail.com > blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > > > 2010/10/17 Izumi AIZU > > Dear List, >> >> Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus >> proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced >> cooperation consultations. >> >> While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make it >> sort of joint statement, we like to first ask our IGC members to discuss >> about >> this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few days >> if that >> is feasible. >> >> Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of course we >> welcome >> your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other >> stakeholders as well. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Jeremy and Izumi >> >> His Excellency Sha Zukang >> Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs >> United Nations >> 3 United Nations Plaza >> New York, NY 10017 >> >> Your Excellency, >> Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil >> society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to >> participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. >> >> Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the >> letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive >> consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with >> a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect >> of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... >> through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their >> respective roles and responsibilities." >> >> In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for >> New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC >> resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that >> non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written >> contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during >> the consultations to summarize the contributions of all >> non-governmental stakeholders. >> >> In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive >> consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an >> intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle >> established at the World Summit on the Information Society that "The >> international management of the Internet should be multilateral, >> transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, >> the private sector, civil society and international organizations." >> >> We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the >> participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this >> consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the >> United Nations complex in New York. >> Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide >> and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, >> the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, >> perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance >> Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. >> Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of >> Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised >> above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. >> >> END >> -- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 18 16:00:27 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 01:00:27 +0500 Subject: [governance] On the issue of community - Then what would be an Internet Governance Community? Message-ID: I have long participated within the Free & Open Source Software Community, something we formed with like minded people from all over the world in an effort to unite the divided forces of Free Software and Open Source Software philosophy flame wars. The word caught on, the concept of FOSS and/or FLOSS and/or Free Libre evolved. Within a separate context of claiming to be and being recognised as a community, the Internet community and the Internet Governance community have crossed our eyes or ears a lot. The following article explores the issue of community in the context of using the term open source community and discusses very interesting issues that are worth the read and maybe we can then also explore Internet Governance Community and Multistakeholderism in the light of this? Here is the article: What open source community? http://opensource.com/government/10/10/what-open-source-community Also before reading the above article, an earlier article also touches on a related question in the context of the statement we developed where there was significant discussion of the role of IGC and CS: Is the word "community" losing its meaning? http://opensource.com/business/10/4/word-community-losing-its-meaning I would like to hear your thoughts in terms of Internet Governance Community. -- 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 Mon Oct 18 18:38:22 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 03:38:22 +0500 Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for comments In-Reply-To: References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy and Izumi, indeed a very expressive letter that enforces our voice from IGC! Well done all! Best Fouad On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear List, > > Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus > proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced > cooperation consultations. > > While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make it > sort of joint statement, we like to first ask our IGC members to discuss about > this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few days if that > is feasible. > > Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of course we welcome > your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other > stakeholders as well. > > Thank you, > > Jeremy and Izumi > > His Excellency Sha Zukang > Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs > United Nations > 3 United Nations Plaza > New York, NY 10017 > > Your Excellency, > Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil > society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to > participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. > > Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the > letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive > consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with > a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect > of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... > through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their > respective roles and responsibilities." > > In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for > New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC > resolution requires.  Specifically, we were surprised that > non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written > contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during > the consultations to summarize the contributions of all > non-governmental stakeholders. > > In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive > consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an > intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle > established at the World Summit on the Information Society that "The > international management of the Internet should be multilateral, > transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, > the private sector, civil society and international organizations." > > We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the > participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this > consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the > United Nations complex in New York. > Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide > and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, > the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, > perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance > Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. > Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of > Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised > above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. > > END > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Oct 18 20:43:27 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 07:43:27 +0700 Subject: [governance] Final text of letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC Message-ID: Here is a version of the text to which the ICC and ISOC are also agreed. The changes are minor. Before making a consensus call, we are still clarifying one of the changes, which is the statement that there will be three representatives rather than one allowed to summarise the submissions of the non-governmental stakeholders. Perhaps this has been agreed privately and we have not yet been informed. Once we clarify this, due to the unanimity of support for this letter already already expressed on the list, it is probably not necessary to subject you all to an another online poll to make a consensus call. Instead, I propose that Izumi and I will make that call based on list statements only. If anyone disagrees, please let us know. His Excellency Sha Zukang Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs United Nations 3 United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017 Dear Undersecretary General Sha ZukangYour Excellency, Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities." In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for 14 December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to nominate a single representative of each stakeholder group (Internet technical community, civil society and business) to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all that non-governmental stakeholders group. In our respectful view We respectfully submit that this does not amount to the open and inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an intergovernmental consultation with constrained participation by the other stakeholders who are critical to the continued development of the Information Society. This runs counter to the principle established at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” In addition, paragraph 71 recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities. We understand that limits acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the participation of business, private sector and civil society, and the Internet technical community stakeholders in this consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at the UN in New York. Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns we have raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. -- Signed by The Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Oct 18 21:11:58 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:11:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Final text of letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF416@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Well done. Lee _______________________________________ From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 8:43 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Final text of letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC Here is a version of the text to which the ICC and ISOC are also agreed. The changes are minor. Before making a consensus call, we are still clarifying one of the changes, which is the statement that there will be three representatives rather than one allowed to summarise the submissions of the non-governmental stakeholders. Perhaps this has been agreed privately and we have not yet been informed. Once we clarify this, due to the unanimity of support for this letter already already expressed on the list, it is probably not necessary to subject you all to an another online poll to make a consensus call. Instead, I propose that Izumi and I will make that call based on list statements only. If anyone disagrees, please let us know. His Excellency Sha Zukang Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs United Nations 3 United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017 Dear Undersecretary General Sha ZukangYour Excellency, Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities." In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for 14 December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to nominate a single representative of each stakeholder group (Internet technical community, civil society and business) to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all that non-governmental stakeholders group. In our respectful view We respectfully submit that this does not amount to the open and inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an intergovernmental consultation with constrained participation by the other stakeholders who are critical to the continued development of the Information Society. This runs counter to the principle established at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” In addition, paragraph 71 recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities. We understand that limits acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the participation of business, private sector and civil society, and the Internet technical community stakeholders in this consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at the UN in New York. Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns we have raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. -- Signed by The Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) -- 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 pbekono at gmail.com Mon Oct 18 21:35:37 2010 From: pbekono at gmail.com (Pascal Bekono) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 02:35:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Final text of letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF416@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF416@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi Jeremy & All, I agree, I think that it's not necessary to make another online poll. Good job as well ! Best, ~Pascal 2010/10/19, Lee W McKnight : > Well done. > > Lee > _______________________________________ > From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org] > Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 8:43 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Final text of letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC > > Here is a version of the text to which the ICC and ISOC are also agreed. > The changes are minor. Before making a consensus call, we are still > clarifying one of the changes, which is the statement that there will be > three representatives rather than one allowed to summarise the submissions > of the non-governmental stakeholders. Perhaps this has been agreed > privately and we have not yet been informed. > > Once we clarify this, due to the unanimity of support for this letter > already already expressed on the list, it is probably not necessary to > subject you all to an another online poll to make a consensus call. > Instead, I propose that Izumi and I will make that call based on list > statements only. If anyone disagrees, please let us know. > > His Excellency Sha Zukang > > Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs > United Nations > 3 United Nations Plaza > New York, NY 10017 > > Dear Undersecretary General Sha ZukangYour Excellency, > > Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil society > and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to participate in > consultations in New York on 14th December. > > Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter > explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving > all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the > process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public > policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced > participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and > responsibilities." > > In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for 14 > December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC > resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental > stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to > nominate a single representative of each stakeholder group (Internet > technical community, civil society and business) to speak during the > consultations to summarize the contributions of all that non-governmental > stakeholders group. > > In our respectful view We respectfully submit that this does not amount to > the open and inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is > effectively an intergovernmental consultation with constrained participation > by the other stakeholders who are critical to the continued development of > the Information Society. This runs counter to the principle established at > the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The > international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent > and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private > sector, civil society and international organizations.” In addition, > paragraph 71 recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in > their respective roles and responsibilities. > > We understand that limits acknowledge that the restraints that have been > placed upon the participation of business, private sector and civil society, > and the Internet technical community stakeholders in this consultation are > said to be as a result of space constraints at the United Nations complex in > New York. > > Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and > inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date > and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following > the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are > already scheduled for 22 November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at > the UN in New York. > > Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of > Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns we have > raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. > -- > > Signed by > The Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) and the > International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) > > -- > 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 Mon Oct 18 21:41:54 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 08:41:54 +0700 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC Message-ID: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> Here is the same text as just posted, but with the changes merged and with "civil society" now placed first in the list of stakeholders; an amendment which Izumi proposed and which ISOC has agreed to (I doubt ICC will object either). On the point about the number of representatives of non-governmental stakeholders, it seems that we needlessly assumed the worst. Re-reading the invitation letter (at http://mini.me.my/h) the interpretation that there will be three representatives does seem the most sensible one ("the views of civil society and private sector organisations, as well as the Internet technical community, will be summarized for presentation by a designated representative, who will base the group's presentation on submissions received"). Since many of you have already expressed your support for the letter, I suggest that during the next 72 hours: * Those who previously agreed with the letter, but who do not agree with the minor changes from ISOC and the ICC, reply to state your objection. * Those who do not agree with either form of the letter, please reply to state your objection. * Those who agree and have not already said so, may reply to say so. Then 72 hours from now (the Charter requires 48 hours) Izumi and I will determine whether we have reached a rough consensus. Here, then, is the final text: His Excellency Sha Zukang Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs United Nations 3 United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017 Dear Undersecretary General Sha Zukang, Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities." In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for 14 December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to nominate a single representative of each stakeholder group (civil society, Internet technical community and business) to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of that non-governmental stakeholder group. In our respectful view this does not amount to the open and inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an intergovernmental consultation with constrained participation by the other stakeholders who are critical to the continued development of the Information Society. This runs counter to the principle established at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” In addition, paragraph 71 recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities. We understand that limits that have been placed upon the participation of civil society, business and the Internet technical community stakeholders in this consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at the UN in New York. Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns we have raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. -- Signed by The Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Oct 18 21:50:17 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 23:50:17 -0200 Subject: [governance] Final text of letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF416@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4CBCF959.8020004@cafonso.ca> +1 --c.a. On 10/18/2010 11:35 PM, Pascal Bekono wrote: > Hi Jeremy& All, > > I agree, I think that it's not necessary to make another online poll. > Good job as well ! > > Best, > > ~Pascal > > 2010/10/19, Lee W McKnight: >> Well done. >> >> Lee >> _______________________________________ >> From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org] >> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 8:43 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] Final text of letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC >> >> Here is a version of the text to which the ICC and ISOC are also agreed. >> The changes are minor. Before making a consensus call, we are still >> clarifying one of the changes, which is the statement that there will be >> three representatives rather than one allowed to summarise the submissions >> of the non-governmental stakeholders. Perhaps this has been agreed >> privately and we have not yet been informed. >> >> Once we clarify this, due to the unanimity of support for this letter >> already already expressed on the list, it is probably not necessary to >> subject you all to an another online poll to make a consensus call. >> Instead, I propose that Izumi and I will make that call based on list >> statements only. If anyone disagrees, please let us know. >> >> His Excellency Sha Zukang >> >> Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs >> United Nations >> 3 United Nations Plaza >> New York, NY 10017 >> >> Dear Undersecretary General Sha ZukangYour Excellency, >> >> Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil society >> and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to participate in >> consultations in New York on 14th December. >> >> Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter >> explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving >> all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the >> process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public >> policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced >> participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and >> responsibilities." >> >> In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for 14 >> December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC >> resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental >> stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to >> nominate a single representative of each stakeholder group (Internet >> technical community, civil society and business) to speak during the >> consultations to summarize the contributions of all that non-governmental >> stakeholders group. >> >> In our respectful view We respectfully submit that this does not amount to >> the open and inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is >> effectively an intergovernmental consultation with constrained participation >> by the other stakeholders who are critical to the continued development of >> the Information Society. This runs counter to the principle established at >> the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The >> international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent >> and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private >> sector, civil society and international organizations.” In addition, >> paragraph 71 recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in >> their respective roles and responsibilities. >> >> We understand that limits acknowledge that the restraints that have been >> placed upon the participation of business, private sector and civil society, >> and the Internet technical community stakeholders in this consultation are >> said to be as a result of space constraints at the United Nations complex in >> New York. >> >> Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and >> inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date >> and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following >> the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are >> already scheduled for 22 November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at >> the UN in New York. >> >> Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of >> Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns we have >> raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. >> -- >> >> Signed by >> The Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) and the >> International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) >> >> -- >> 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 -- 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Mon Oct 18 22:32:53 2010 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 22:32:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> References: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I agree, but with one note - in para 3, line 1: "In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for 14 December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires." Should be either "consultation...is" or "consultations .... are". Jacqueline On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Here is the same text as just posted, but with the changes merged and with > "civil society" now placed first in the list of stakeholders; an amendment > which Izumi proposed and which ISOC has agreed to (I doubt ICC will object > either). > > On the point about the number of representatives of non-governmental > stakeholders, it seems that we needlessly assumed the worst. Re-reading the > invitation letter (at http://mini.me.my/h) the interpretation that there > will be three representatives does seem the most sensible one ("the views of > civil society and private sector organisations, as well as the Internet > technical community, will be summarized for presentation by a designated > representative, who will base the group's presentation on submissions > received"). > > Since many of you have already expressed your support for the letter, I > suggest that during the next 72 hours: > > * Those who previously agreed with the letter, but who do not agree with > the minor changes from ISOC and the ICC, reply to state your objection. > > * Those who do not agree with either form of the letter, please reply to > state your objection. > > * Those who agree and have not already said so, may reply to say so. > > Then 72 hours from now (the Charter requires 48 hours) Izumi and I will > determine whether we have reached a rough consensus. Here, then, is the > final text: > > > His Excellency Sha Zukang > Under Secretary General for Economic and Social AffairsUnited Nations > 3 United Nations Plaza > New York, NY 10017 > Dear Undersecretary General Sha Zukang, > Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil > society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to > participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. > Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter > explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving > all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the > process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public > policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced > participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and > responsibilities." > In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for 14 > December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC > resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental > stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to > nominate a single representative of each stakeholder group (civil society, > Internet technical community and business) to speak during the consultations > to summarize the contributions of that non-governmental stakeholder group. > In our respectful view this does not amount to the open and inclusive > consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an > intergovernmental consultation with constrained participation by the other > stakeholders who are critical to the continued development of the > Information Society. This runs counter to the principle established at the > World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The > international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent > and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private > sector, civil society and international organizations.” In addition, > paragraph 71 recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in > their respective roles and responsibilities. > We understand that limits that have been placed upon the participation > of civil society, business and the Internet technical > community stakeholders in this consultation are said to be as a result of > space constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. > Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and > inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date > and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following > the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are > already scheduled for 22 November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at > the UN in New York. > Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of > Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns we > have raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. > -- > Signed byThe Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) and > the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) > > -- > > *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 kichango at gmail.com Mon Oct 18 22:42:44 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 22:42:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Final text of letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: <4CBCF959.8020004@cafonso.ca> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF416@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CBCF959.8020004@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Adding my support. Great job, thanks! One little observation, though. I gather you're referring to the Geneva Declaration of Principles in the following paragraph, right? This runs counter to the principle established at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” In addition, paragraph 71 recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities.I would suggest that when the text gets down to referencing a paragraph, it might be better to make the whole reference explicit and direct (even though I understand that the recipient is as familiar as anyone can be with the WSIS process and would understand the implied.) So I suggest something like: In addition, paragraph 71 of the Declaration of Principles recognizes... [or some variant thereof] Best, Mawaki On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > +1 > > --c.a. > > > On 10/18/2010 11:35 PM, Pascal Bekono wrote: > >> Hi Jeremy& All, >> >> I agree, I think that it's not necessary to make another online poll. >> Good job as well ! >> >> Best, >> >> ~Pascal >> >> 2010/10/19, Lee W McKnight: >> >>> Well done. >>> >>> Lee >>> _______________________________________ >>> From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org] >>> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 8:43 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] Final text of letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC >>> >>> Here is a version of the text to which the ICC and ISOC are also agreed. >>> The changes are minor. Before making a consensus call, we are still >>> clarifying one of the changes, which is the statement that there will be >>> three representatives rather than one allowed to summarise the >>> submissions >>> of the non-governmental stakeholders. Perhaps this has been agreed >>> privately and we have not yet been informed. >>> >>> Once we clarify this, due to the unanimity of support for this letter >>> already already expressed on the list, it is probably not necessary to >>> subject you all to an another online poll to make a consensus call. >>> Instead, I propose that Izumi and I will make that call based on list >>> statements only. If anyone disagrees, please let us know. >>> >>> His Excellency Sha Zukang >>> >>> Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs >>> United Nations >>> 3 United Nations Plaza >>> New York, NY 10017 >>> >>> Dear Undersecretary General Sha ZukangYour Excellency, >>> >>> Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil >>> society >>> and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to participate >>> in >>> consultations in New York on 14th December. >>> >>> Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter >>> explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations >>> involving >>> all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the >>> process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public >>> policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced >>> participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and >>> responsibilities." >>> >>> In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for 14 >>> December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC >>> resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that >>> non-governmental >>> stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to >>> nominate a single representative of each stakeholder group (Internet >>> technical community, civil society and business) to speak during the >>> consultations to summarize the contributions of all that non-governmental >>> stakeholders group. >>> >>> In our respectful view We respectfully submit that this does not amount >>> to >>> the open and inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is >>> effectively an intergovernmental consultation with constrained >>> participation >>> by the other stakeholders who are critical to the continued development >>> of >>> the Information Society. This runs counter to the principle established >>> at >>> the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The >>> international management of the Internet should be multilateral, >>> transparent >>> and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private >>> sector, civil society and international organizations.” In addition, >>> paragraph 71 recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in >>> their respective roles and responsibilities. >>> >>> We understand that limits acknowledge that the restraints that have been >>> placed upon the participation of business, private sector and civil >>> society, >>> and the Internet technical community stakeholders in this consultation >>> are >>> said to be as a result of space constraints at the United Nations complex >>> in >>> New York. >>> >>> Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and >>> inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the >>> date >>> and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps >>> following >>> the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are >>> already scheduled for 22 November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at >>> the UN in New York. >>> >>> Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of >>> Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns we have >>> raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. >>> -- >>> >>> Signed by >>> The Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) and the >>> International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> > > -- > > 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Oct 19 02:08:53 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:08:53 +0700 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: References: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <212E23BC-926B-43BF-848A-692631A307F1@ciroap.org> This (the s) was a typo on my part, sorry. On 19-Oct-2010, at 9:32 AM, Jacqueline Morris wrote: > I agree, but with one note - in para 3, line 1: > "In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled > for 14 December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as > the ECOSOC resolution requires." > > Should be either "consultation...is" or "consultations .... are". > > Jacqueline > > > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > Here is the same text as just posted, but with the changes merged > and with "civil society" now placed first in the list of > stakeholders; an amendment which Izumi proposed and which ISOC has > agreed to (I doubt ICC will object either). > > On the point about the number of representatives of non-governmental > stakeholders, it seems that we needlessly assumed the worst. Re- > reading the invitation letter (at http://mini.me.my/h) the > interpretation that there will be three representatives does seem > the most sensible one ("the views of civil society and private > sector organisations, as well as the Internet technical community, > will be summarized for presentation by a designated representative, > who will base the group's presentation on submissions received"). > > Since many of you have already expressed your support for the > letter, I suggest that during the next 72 hours: > > * Those who previously agreed with the letter, but who do not agree > with the minor changes from ISOC and the ICC, reply to state your > objection. > > * Those who do not agree with either form of the letter, please > reply to state your objection. > > * Those who agree and have not already said so, may reply to say so. > > Then 72 hours from now (the Charter requires 48 hours) Izumi and I > will determine whether we have reached a rough consensus. Here, > then, is the final text: > > > His Excellency Sha Zukang > Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs > United Nations > 3 United Nations Plaza > New York, NY 10017 > > Dear Undersecretary General Sha Zukang, > > Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil > society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to > participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. > > Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the > letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive > consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders > with a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in > respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the > Internet ... through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in > their respective roles and responsibilities." > > In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled > for 14 December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as > the ECOSOC resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised > that non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written > contributions, and to nominate a single representative of each > stakeholder group (civil society, Internet technical community and > business) to speak during the consultations to summarize the > contributions of that non-governmental stakeholder group. > > In our respectful view this does not amount to the open and > inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is > effectively an intergovernmental consultation with constrained > participation by the other stakeholders who are critical to the > continued development of the Information Society. This runs counter > to the principle established at the World Summit on the Information > Society (WSIS) including that "The international management of the > Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with > the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil > society and international organizations.” In addition, paragraph 71 > recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in their r > espective roles and responsibilities. > > We understand that limits that have been placed upon the > participation of civil society, > business and the Internet technical community stakeholders in this > consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the > United Nations complex in New York. > > Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide > and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this > consultation, the date and venue be changed to the Palais des > Nations in Geneva, perhaps following the open consultations of the > Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are already scheduled for 22 > November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at the UN in New York. > > Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process > of Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns > we have raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in > due course. > -- > > Signed by > The Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) and the > International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) > > -- > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 19 02:32:36 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 12:02:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: <212E23BC-926B-43BF-848A-692631A307F1@ciroap.org> References: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> <212E23BC-926B-43BF-848A-692631A307F1@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4CBD3B84.4000805@itforchange.net> Agree with the text. Thanks all. On Tuesday 19 October 2010 11:38 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > This (the s) was a typo on my part, sorry. > > On 19-Oct-2010, at 9:32 AM, Jacqueline Morris > > wrote: > >> I agree, but with one note - in para 3, line 1: >> "In this context we are concerned that the >> consultations scheduled for 14 December in New York is not in fact as >> open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires." >> >> Should be either "consultation...is" or "consultations .... are". >> >> Jacqueline >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > > wrote: >> >> Here is the same text as just posted, but with the changes merged >> and with "civil society" now placed first in the list of >> stakeholders; an amendment which Izumi proposed and which ISOC >> has agreed to (I doubt ICC will object either). >> >> On the point about the number of representatives of >> non-governmental stakeholders, it seems that we needlessly >> assumed the worst. Re-reading the invitation letter (at >> http://mini.me.my/h) the interpretation that there will be three >> representatives does seem the most sensible one ("the views of >> civil society and private sector organisations, as well as the >> Internet technical community, will be summarized for presentation >> by a designated representative, who will base the group's >> presentation on submissions received"). >> >> Since many of you have already expressed your support for the >> letter, I suggest that during the next 72 hours: >> >> * Those who previously agreed with the letter, but who do not >> agree with the minor changes from ISOC and the ICC, reply to >> state your objection. >> >> * Those who do not agree with either form of the letter, please >> reply to state your objection. >> >> * Those who agree and have not already said so, may reply to say so. >> >> Then 72 hours from now (the Charter requires 48 hours) Izumi and >> I will determine whether we have reached a rough consensus. >> Here, then, is the final text: >> >> >> His Excellency Sha Zukang >> >> Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs >> United Nations >> 3 United Nations Plaza >> New York, NY 10017 >> >> Dear Undersecretary General Sha Zukang, >> >> Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to >> civil society and private sector stakeholders, in which you >> invite them to participate in consultations in New York on 14th >> December. >> >> Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the >> letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive >> consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders >> with a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation >> ... in respect of international public policy issues pertaining >> to the Internet ... through a balanced participation of all >> stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities." >> >> In this context we are concerned that the >> consultations scheduled for 14 December in New York is not in >> fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires. >> Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental >> stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and >> to nominate a single representative of each stakeholder group >> (civil society, Internet technical community and business) to >> speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions >> of that non-governmental stakeholder group. >> >> In our respectful view this does not amount to the open and >> inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is >> effectively an intergovernmental consultation with constrained >> participation by the other stakeholders who are critical to the >> continued development of the Information Society. This runs >> counter to the principle established at the World Summit on the >> Information Society (WSIS) including that "The international >> management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent >> and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the >> private sector, civil society and >> international organizations.” In addition, paragraph 71 >> recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in >> their respective roles and responsibilities. >> >> We understand that limits that have been placed upon the >> participation of civil society, >> business and the Internet technical community stakeholders in >> this consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints >> at the United Nations complex in New York. >> >> Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing >> wide and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this >> consultation, the date and venue be changed to the Palais des >> Nations in Geneva, perhaps following the open consultations of >> the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are already scheduled >> for 22 November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at the UN in >> New York. >> >> Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder >> process of Internet governance, and for considering the important >> concerns we have raised above. We look forward to receiving your >> response in due course. >> -- >> >> Signed by >> The Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) and >> the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) >> >> -- >> >> *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 parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 19 03:02:21 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 12:32:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011, 16 to 20 May Geneva In-Reply-To: <4CBC9C42.1080801@apc.org> References: <4CBC9C42.1080801@apc.org> Message-ID: <4CBD427D.3070809@itforchange.net> It is significant that the WSIS forum will not be shifted to New York as was mooted. Could have implications for negotiations around improvement/ changes to the IGF, likely to take place in a few days at th UN Gen Assembly. This has further reduced the chances of the IGF secretariat shifting to New York, as is feared by some. Parminder On Tuesday 19 October 2010 12:43 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Invitation Letter: Preparatory Process for WSIS Forum 2011, > 16 to 20 May Geneva > Date: 18 Oct 2010 19:28:26 +0200 > From: WSIS Team > Reply-To: WSIS Team > To: anriette at apc.org > > > > Dear WSIS Stakeholder, > > ITU, UNESCO, UNCTAD and UNDP are pleased to announce that based on the > views submitted during the open consultations held from 10 August -12 > September 2010, the WSIS Forum 2011 will be held in Geneva from the > 16th -20th of May. > > In line with the participatory and inclusive spirit of the WSIS Forum > 2011, an open consultation on the thematic focus of the Forum has been > announced (starting from 15th October 2010). Please find attached the > invitation letter for participating in the preparatory process for > WSIS Forum 2011. The consultation is structured in four steps, we > request you to follow the open consultation process at > www.wsis.org/forum . > > We look forward to your active participation in the preparatory phase > of the WSIS Forum 2011 and welcome all stakeholders to Geneva in May. > > Best wishes, > > WSIS Team > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Oct 19 02:53:02 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 08:53:02 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC References: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A072B9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Full Support wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Gesendet: Di 19.10.2010 03:41 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC Here is the same text as just posted, but with the changes merged and with "civil society" now placed first in the list of stakeholders; an amendment which Izumi proposed and which ISOC has agreed to (I doubt ICC will object either). On the point about the number of representatives of non-governmental stakeholders, it seems that we needlessly assumed the worst. Re-reading the invitation letter (at http://mini.me.my/h) the interpretation that there will be three representatives does seem the most sensible one ("the views of civil society and private sector organisations, as well as the Internet technical community, will be summarized for presentation by a designated representative, who will base the group's presentation on submissions received"). Since many of you have already expressed your support for the letter, I suggest that during the next 72 hours: * Those who previously agreed with the letter, but who do not agree with the minor changes from ISOC and the ICC, reply to state your objection. * Those who do not agree with either form of the letter, please reply to state your objection. * Those who agree and have not already said so, may reply to say so. Then 72 hours from now (the Charter requires 48 hours) Izumi and I will determine whether we have reached a rough consensus. Here, then, is the final text: His Excellency Sha Zukang Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs United Nations 3 United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017 Dear Undersecretary General Sha Zukang, Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities." In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for 14 December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to nominate a single representative of each stakeholder group (civil society, Internet technical community and business) to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of that non-governmental stakeholder group. In our respectful view this does not amount to the open and inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an intergovernmental consultation with constrained participation by the other stakeholders who are critical to the continued development of the Information Society. This runs counter to the principle established at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations." In addition, paragraph 71 recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities. We understand that limits that have been placed upon the participation of civil society, business and the Internet technical community stakeholders in this consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at the UN in New York. Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns we have raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. -- Signed by The Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) -- 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Tue Oct 19 04:44:56 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:44:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Final text of letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01990DF416@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CBCF959.8020004@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20101019104129.0be60308@jefsey.com> At 04:42 19/10/2010, Mawaki Chango wrote: >Adding my support. Great job, thanks! > >One little observation, though. I gather you're referring to the >Geneva Declaration of Principles in the following paragraph, >right?This runs counter to the principle established at the World >Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The >international management of the Internet should be multilateral, >transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of >governments, the private sector, civil society and international >organizations." In addition, paragraph 71 recognizes enhanced >cooperation involves all stakeholders in their respective roles and >responsibilities.I would suggest that when the text gets down to >referencing a paragraph, it might be better to make the whole >reference explicit and direct (even though I understand that the >recipient is as familiar as anyone can be with the WSIS process and >would understand the implied.) So I suggest something like: > >In addition, paragraph 71 of the Declaration of Principles >recognizes... [or some variant thereof] > >Best, > >Mawaki +1 jfc PS. This remark might also apply to ISOC (irt. their non-BoT represented global members). I am always worried however that the WSIS forgot about the two main internet poles: SDOs and Users. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 19 05:31:59 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:31:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011, 16 to 20 May Geneva In-Reply-To: <4CBD427D.3070809@itforchange.net> References: <4CBC9C42.1080801@apc.org> <4CBD427D.3070809@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <41784D1C-ED35-4DC4-8256-8CBF67BE520D@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi On Oct 19, 2010, at 9:02 AM, parminder wrote: > It is significant that the WSIS forum will not be shifted to New York as was mooted. Could have implications for negotiations around improvement/ changes to the IGF, likely to take place in a few days at th UN Gen Assembly. This has further reduced the chances of the IGF secretariat shifting to New York, as is feared by some. Parminder I'm pretty surprised by this shift, as there have been statements at the Plenipot in Guadalajara by governments with presumably good access to the ITU secretariat that referred to the forum being held in New York. One has to wonder about the coordination and who is really in which loop, but as it's all non-transparent wondering is all we can do. Would be interesting to know though if the concerns expressed by non-state actors actually had some impact. How this may relate to the IGF issue is also hard to judge, but it doesn't hurt. On Oct 18, 2010, at 5:08 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > We are keenly waiting for the response from ICC and ISOC Great that this worked out, a shared position should resonate. Hopefully the WSIS Forum outcome is a harbinger... > > In the mean time, are there people going to Geneva consultation > meeting in late November? I plan to, but it would be nice to > coordinate our activities there in advance. Please let us know. I'll be here. Best, Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 19 05:47:34 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:17:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011, 16 to 20 May Geneva In-Reply-To: <41784D1C-ED35-4DC4-8256-8CBF67BE520D@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4CBC9C42.1080801@apc.org> <4CBD427D.3070809@itforchange.net> <41784D1C-ED35-4DC4-8256-8CBF67BE520D@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4CBD6936.9060202@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 19 October 2010 03:01 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Oct 19, 2010, at 9:02 AM, parminder wrote: > >> It is significant that the WSIS forum will not be shifted to New York >> as was mooted. Could have implications for negotiations around >> improvement/ changes to the IGF, likely to take place in a few days >> at th UN Gen Assembly. This has further reduced the chances of the >> IGF secretariat shifting to New York, as is feared by some. Parminder > > I'm pretty surprised by this shift, as there have been statements at > the Plenipot in Guadalajara by governments with presumably good access > to the ITU secretariat that referred to the forum being held in New > York. One has to wonder about the coordination and who is really in > which loop, but as it's all non-transparent wondering is all we can > do. Would be interesting to know though if the concerns expressed by > non-state actors actually had some impact. > > How this may relate to the IGF issue is also hard to judge, but it > doesn't hurt. One of the suggestion was to roll IGF up into the general WSIS forum, which would still be very bad even if WSIS forum stays in Geneva, but if WSIS forum had moved to NY, the pulls for IGF sect. to move to NY would have been stronger. In any case, the more important things that this decision to retain WSIS forum in Geneva (more so in light of Bil's email about what he heard at the ITU meeting) points to are (1) In the UN system it is difficult to change status quos. It requires a very high level of consensus to do so, and in the case of the more problematic changes to the IGF that we often fear and discuss such a level consensus is simply not there (2) Developed countries are still very powerful players. Things are very unlikely to move around if they dont like them to move around. Parminder > > > On Oct 18, 2010, at 5:08 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> We are keenly waiting for the response from ICC and ISOC > > Great that this worked out, a shared position should resonate. > Hopefully the WSIS Forum outcome is a harbinger... >> >> In the mean time, are there people going to Geneva consultation >> meeting in late November? I plan to, but it would be nice to >> coordinate our activities there in advance. Please let us know. > > I'll be here. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Oct 19 06:54:33 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:54:33 +0900 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> References: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Just a bit more about how to address Mr. Sha. The UN does not use "Excellency" for UN staff, but it wouldn't hurt to use it in this case perhaps. It would be best used in the address: His Excellency Mr. Sha Zukang Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs United Nations 3 United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017 The two hyphens in Under-Secretary-General are important. The letter can then start with a plain: Dear Mr. Sha, This would be correct. If we must use Excellency, then the correct form is : Excellency, Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil society and... Pedantically yours :-) Adam >Here is the same text as just posted, but with >the changes merged and with "civil society" now >placed first in the list of stakeholders; an >amendment which Izumi proposed and which ISOC >has agreed to (I doubt ICC will object either). > >On the point about the number of representatives >of non-governmental stakeholders, it seems that >we needlessly assumed the worst.  Re-reading the >invitation letter (at >http://mini.me.my/h) the >interpretation that there will be three >representatives does seem the most sensible one >("the views of civil society and private sector >organisations, as well as the Internet technical >community, will be summarized for presentation >by a designated representative, who will base >the group's presentation on submissions >received"). > >Since many of you have already expressed your >support for the letter, I suggest that during >the next 72 hours: > >* Those who previously agreed with the letter, >but who do not agree with the minor changes from >ISOC and the ICC, reply to state your objection. > >* Those who do not agree with either form of the >letter, please reply to state your objection. > >* Those who agree and have not already said so, may reply to say so. > >Then 72 hours from now (the Charter requires 48 >hours) Izumi and I will determine whether we >have reached a rough consensus.  Here, then, is >the final text: > > >His Excellency Sha Zukang > >Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs >United Nations >3 United Nations Plaza >New York, NY 10017 > >Dear Undersecretary General Sha Zukang, > >Thank you for your open letter of 7 October >2010, addressed to civil society and private >sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to >participate in consultations in New York on 14th >December. > >Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and >Social Council, the letter explains that these >are meant as "open and inclusive consultations >involving all Member States and other >stakeholders with a view to assisting the >process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect >of international public policy issues pertaining >to the Internet ... through a balanced >participation of all stakeholders in their >respective roles and responsibilities." > >In this context we are concerned that the >consultations scheduled for 14 December in New >York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the >ECOSOC resolution requires.  Specifically, we >were surprised that non-governmental >stakeholders were invited only to give written >contributions, and to nominate a single >representative of each stakeholder group (civil >society, Internet technical community and >business) to speak during the consultations to >summarize the contributions of that >non-governmental stakeholder group. > >In our respectful view this does not amount to >the open and inclusive consultation called for >by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an >intergovernmental consultation with constrained >participation by the other stakeholders who are >critical to the continued development of the >Information Society. This runs counter to the >principle established at the World Summit on the >Information Society (WSIS) including that "The >international management of the Internet should >be multilateral, transparent and >democratic, with the full involvement of >governments, the private sector, civil society >and international organizations.² In addition, >paragraph 71 recognizes enhanced cooperation >involves all stakeholders in their respective >roles and responsibilities. > >We understand that limits that have been placed >upon the participation of civil society, >business and the Internet technical >community stakeholders in this consultation are >said to be as a result of space constraints at >the United Nations complex in New York. > >Might we suggest, then, that due to the >importance of securing wide and inclusive >participation of all stakeholders in this >consultation, the date and venue be changed to >the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps >following the open consultations of the Internet >Governance Forum (IGF) that are already >scheduled for 22 November 2010 or that a larger >venue be found at the UN in New York. > >Thank you for your ongoing support of the >multi-stakeholder process of Internet >governance, and for considering the important >concerns we have raised above. We look forward >to receiving your response in due course. >--  > >Signed by >The Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet >Society (ISOC) and the International Chamber of >Commerce (ICC) > >-- > >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. > > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:smime 17.p7s ( / ) (00809CA4) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Tue Oct 19 08:36:02 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 08:36:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Final text of letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled *for 14 December* in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to nominate a single representative *of each stakeholder group (Internet technical community, civil society and business) *to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all *that non-governmental stakeholder*s* group*. In "that non-governmental stakeholder group" is it necessary to include "non-governmental"? In a multi-stakeholder gathering one should not qualify a group of those stakeholders as not being the same as another individual stakeholder. This seems to acknowledge a superiority to the individual group that the several groups are "not like". "that stakeholder group" seems to me to express more clearly a perceived discrepancy in the allocation of representatives. Deirdre On 18 October 2010 20:43, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Here is a version of the text to which the ICC and ISOC are also agreed. > The changes are minor. Before making a consensus call, we are still > clarifying one of the changes, which is the statement that there will be > three representatives rather than one allowed to summarise the submissions > of the non-governmental stakeholders. Perhaps this has been agreed > privately and we have not yet been informed. > > Once we clarify this, due to the unanimity of support for this letter > already already expressed on the list, it is probably not necessary to > subject you all to an another online poll to make a consensus call. > Instead, I propose that Izumi and I will make that call based on list > statements only. If anyone disagrees, please let us know. > > His Excellency Sha Zukang > Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs United Nations > 3 United Nations Plaza > New York, NY 10017 > *Dear Undersecretary General Sha Zukang*Your Excellency*,* > Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil > society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to > participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. > Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter > explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving > all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the > process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public > policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced > participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and > responsibilities." > In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled *for 14 > December* in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC > resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental > stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to > nominate a single representative *of each stakeholder group (Internet > technical community, civil society and business) *to speak during the > consultations to summarize the contributions of all *that non-governmental > stakeholder*s* group*. > *In our respectful view *We respectfully submit that this does not amount > to the open and inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is > effectively an intergovernmental consultation *with constrained > participation by the other stakeholders who are critical to the continued > development of the Information Society*. This runs counter to the > principle established at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) > including that "The international management of the Internet should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and > international organizations.” *In addition, paragraph 71 recognizes > enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in their respective roles and > responsibilities.* > We *understand that limits* acknowledge that the restraints that have been > placed upon the participation of *business,* private sector and civil > society*, and the Internet technical community *stakeholders in this > consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the United > Nations complex in New York. > Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and > inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date > and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following > the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum *(IGF)* that are > already scheduled for 22 November 2010 *or that a larger venue be found at > the UN in New York*. > Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of > Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns *we have*raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. > -- > *Signed by **The Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) > and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)* > > -- > > *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. > > > -- “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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Oct 19 09:20:36 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:20:36 -0200 Subject: [governance] Final text of letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Good work! I agree with the text, taking into account the valuable observation made by De. On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled *for 14 > December* in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC > resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental > stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to > nominate a single representative *of each stakeholder group (Internet > technical community, civil society and business) *to speak during the > consultations to summarize the contributions of all *that non-governmental > stakeholder*s* group*. > > In "that non-governmental stakeholder group" is it necessary to include > "non-governmental"? In a multi-stakeholder gathering one should not qualify > a group of those stakeholders as not being the same as another individual > stakeholder. This seems to acknowledge a superiority to the individual group > that the several groups are "not like". "that stakeholder group" seems to me > to express more clearly a perceived discrepancy in the allocation of > representatives. > Deirdre > > On 18 October 2010 20:43, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> Here is a version of the text to which the ICC and ISOC are also agreed. >> The changes are minor. Before making a consensus call, we are still >> clarifying one of the changes, which is the statement that there will be >> three representatives rather than one allowed to summarise the submissions >> of the non-governmental stakeholders. Perhaps this has been agreed >> privately and we have not yet been informed. >> >> Once we clarify this, due to the unanimity of support for this letter >> already already expressed on the list, it is probably not necessary to >> subject you all to an another online poll to make a consensus call. >> Instead, I propose that Izumi and I will make that call based on list >> statements only. If anyone disagrees, please let us know. >> >> His Excellency Sha Zukang >> Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs United Nations >> 3 United Nations Plaza >> New York, NY 10017 >> *Dear Undersecretary General Sha Zukang*Your Excellency*,* >> Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil >> society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to >> participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. >> Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter >> explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving >> all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the >> process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public >> policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced >> participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and >> responsibilities." >> In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled *for 14 >> December* in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC >> resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental >> stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to >> nominate a single representative *of each stakeholder group (Internet >> technical community, civil society and business) *to speak during the >> consultations to summarize the contributions of all *that >> non-governmental stakeholder*s* group*. >> *In our respectful view *We respectfully submit that this does not amount >> to the open and inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is >> effectively an intergovernmental consultation *with constrained >> participation by the other stakeholders who are critical to the continued >> development of the Information Society*. This runs counter to the >> principle established at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) >> including that "The international management of the Internet should be >> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of >> governments, the private sector, civil society and >> international organizations.” *In addition, paragraph 71 recognizes >> enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in their respective roles and >> responsibilities.* >> We *understand that limits* acknowledge that the restraints that have >> been placed upon the participation of *business,* private sector andcivil society >> *, and the Internet technical community *stakeholders in this >> consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the United >> Nations complex in New York. >> Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and >> inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date >> and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following >> the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum *(IGF)* that are >> already scheduled for 22 November 2010 *or that a larger venue be found >> at the UN in New York*. >> Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of >> Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns *we have*raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. >> -- >> *Signed by **The Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) >> and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)* >> >> -- >> >> *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. >> >> >> > > > -- > “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 > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From zads911 at msn.com Tue Oct 19 09:27:43 2010 From: zads911 at msn.com (Mohamed zahran) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:27:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] Final text of letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: References: ,, Message-ID: Me too agree on it Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:20:36 -0200 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; williams.deirdre at gmail.com CC: jeremy at ciroap.org Subject: Re: [governance] Final text of letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC Good work! I agree with the text, taking into account the valuable observation made by De. On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for 14 December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to nominate a single representative of each stakeholder group (Internet technical community, civil society and business) to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all that non-governmental stakeholders group. In "that non-governmental stakeholder group" is it necessary to include "non-governmental"? In a multi-stakeholder gathering one should not qualify a group of those stakeholders as not being the same as another individual stakeholder. This seems to acknowledge a superiority to the individual group that the several groups are "not like". "that stakeholder group" seems to me to express more clearly a perceived discrepancy in the allocation of representatives. Deirdre On 18 October 2010 20:43, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: Here is a version of the text to which the ICC and ISOC are also agreed. The changes are minor. Before making a consensus call, we are still clarifying one of the changes, which is the statement that there will be three representatives rather than one allowed to summarise the submissions of the non-governmental stakeholders. Perhaps this has been agreed privately and we have not yet been informed. Once we clarify this, due to the unanimity of support for this letter already already expressed on the list, it is probably not necessary to subject you all to an another online poll to make a consensus call. Instead, I propose that Izumi and I will make that call based on list statements only. If anyone disagrees, please let us know. His Excellency Sha Zukang Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs United Nations 3 United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017 Dear Undersecretary General Sha ZukangYour Excellency, Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities." In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for 14 December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to nominate a single representative of each stakeholder group (Internet technical community, civil society and business) to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all that non-governmental stakeholders group. In our respectful view We respectfully submit that this does not amount to the open and inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an intergovernmental consultation with constrained participation by the other stakeholders who are critical to the continued development of the Information Society. This runs counter to the principle established at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” In addition, paragraph 71 recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities. We understand that limits acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the participation of business, private sector and civil society, and the Internet technical community stakeholders in this consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at the UN in New York. Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns we have raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. -- Signed by The Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) -- 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. -- “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 -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 10:31:43 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 07:31:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC Message-ID: <643059.60570.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Very Good! I agree with the text. Regards Imran On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:41 PKT Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >Here is the same text as just posted, but with the changes merged and with "civil society" now placed first in the list of stakeholders; an amendment which Izumi proposed and which ISOC has agreed to (I doubt ICC will object either). > >On the point about the number of representatives of non-governmental stakeholders, it seems that we needlessly assumed the worst. Re-reading the invitation letter (at http://mini.me.my/h) the interpretation that there will be three representatives does seem the most sensible one ("the views of civil society and private sector organisations, as well as the Internet technical community, will be summarized for presentation by a designated representative, who will base the group's presentation on submissions received"). > >Since many of you have already expressed your support for the letter, I suggest that during the next 72 hours: > >* Those who previously agreed with the letter, but who do not agree with the minor changes from ISOC and the ICC, reply to state your objection. > >* Those who do not agree with either form of the letter, please reply to state your objection. > >* Those who agree and have not already said so, may reply to say so. > >Then 72 hours from now (the Charter requires 48 hours) Izumi and I will determine whether we have reached a rough consensus. Here, then, is the final text: > > >His Excellency Sha Zukang >Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs >United Nations >3 United Nations Plaza >New York, NY 10017 > >Dear Undersecretary General Sha Zukang, > >Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. > >Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities." > >In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for 14 December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to nominate a single representative of each stakeholder group (civil society, Internet technical community and business) to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of that non-governmental stakeholder group. > >In our respectful view this does not amount to the open and inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an intergovernmental consultation with constrained participation by the other stakeholders who are critical to the continued development of the Information Society. This runs counter to the principle established at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” In addition, paragraph 71 recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities. > >We understand that limits that have been placed upon the participation of civil society, >business and the Internet technical community stakeholders in this consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. > >Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at the UN in New York. > >Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns we have raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. >-- > >Signed by >The Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) > >-- >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 b.schombe at gmail.com Tue Oct 19 11:08:33 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:08:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> References: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Good evening to you all, I personally have no objection because the letter is very good and very well thought out. The most important is our agenda after this letter. best regards SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) ACADEMIE DES TIC *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914 email: b.schombe at gmail.com blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2010/10/19 Jeremy Malcolm > Here is the same text as just posted, but with the changes merged and with > "civil society" now placed first in the list of stakeholders; an amendment > which Izumi proposed and which ISOC has agreed to (I doubt ICC will object > either). > > On the point about the number of representatives of non-governmental > stakeholders, it seems that we needlessly assumed the worst. Re-reading the > invitation letter (at http://mini.me.my/h) the interpretation that there > will be three representatives does seem the most sensible one ("the views of > civil society and private sector organisations, as well as the Internet > technical community, will be summarized for presentation by a designated > representative, who will base the group's presentation on submissions > received"). > > Since many of you have already expressed your support for the letter, I > suggest that during the next 72 hours: > > * Those who previously agreed with the letter, but who do not agree with > the minor changes from ISOC and the ICC, reply to state your objection. > > * Those who do not agree with either form of the letter, please reply to > state your objection. > > * Those who agree and have not already said so, may reply to say so. > > Then 72 hours from now (the Charter requires 48 hours) Izumi and I will > determine whether we have reached a rough consensus. Here, then, is the > final text: > > > His Excellency Sha Zukang > Under Secretary General for Economic and Social AffairsUnited Nations > 3 United Nations Plaza > New York, NY 10017 > Dear Undersecretary General Sha Zukang, > Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil > society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to > participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. > Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter > explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving > all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the > process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public > policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced > participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and > responsibilities." > In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for 14 > December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC > resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental > stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to > nominate a single representative of each stakeholder group (civil society, > Internet technical community and business) to speak during the consultations > to summarize the contributions of that non-governmental stakeholder group. > In our respectful view this does not amount to the open and inclusive > consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an > intergovernmental consultation with constrained participation by the other > stakeholders who are critical to the continued development of the > Information Society. This runs counter to the principle established at the > World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The > international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent > and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private > sector, civil society and international organizations.” In addition, > paragraph 71 recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in > their respective roles and responsibilities. > We understand that limits that have been placed upon the participation > of civil society, business and the Internet technical > community stakeholders in this consultation are said to be as a result of > space constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. > Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and > inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date > and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following > the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are > already scheduled for 22 November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at > the UN in New York. > Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of > Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns we > have raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. > -- > Signed byThe Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) and > the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) > > -- > > *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 Tue Oct 19 11:16:03 2010 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:16:03 +0600 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC References: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear Madam/Sir, Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) We strongly Support this letter. Very special thank to all of you. Hope to see you. Bazlu _________________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] & Head, Community Radio Academy House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Baudouin SCHOMBE To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 9:08 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC Good evening to you all, I personally have no objection because the letter is very good and very well thought out. The most important is our agenda after this letter. best regards SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) ACADEMIE DES TIC *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914 email: b.schombe at gmail.com blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2010/10/19 Jeremy Malcolm Here is the same text as just posted, but with the changes merged and with "civil society" now placed first in the list of stakeholders; an amendment which Izumi proposed and which ISOC has agreed to (I doubt ICC will object either). On the point about the number of representatives of non-governmental stakeholders, it seems that we needlessly assumed the worst. Re-reading the invitation letter (at http://mini.me.my/h) the interpretation that there will be three representatives does seem the most sensible one ("the views of civil society and private sector organisations, as well as the Internet technical community, will be summarized for presentation by a designated representative, who will base the group's presentation on submissions received"). Since many of you have already expressed your support for the letter, I suggest that during the next 72 hours: * Those who previously agreed with the letter, but who do not agree with the minor changes from ISOC and the ICC, reply to state your objection. * Those who do not agree with either form of the letter, please reply to state your objection. * Those who agree and have not already said so, may reply to say so. Then 72 hours from now (the Charter requires 48 hours) Izumi and I will determine whether we have reached a rough consensus. Here, then, is the final text: His Excellency Sha Zukang Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs United Nations 3 United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017 Dear Undersecretary General Sha Zukang, Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities." In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for 14 December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to nominate a single representative of each stakeholder group (civil society, Internet technical community and business) to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of that non-governmental stakeholder group. In our respectful view this does not amount to the open and inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an intergovernmental consultation with constrained participation by the other stakeholders who are critical to the continued development of the Information Society. This runs counter to the principle established at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations." In addition, paragraph 71 recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities. We understand that limits that have been placed upon the participation of civil society, business and the Internet technical community stakeholders in this consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at the UN in New York. Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns we have raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. -- Signed by The Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) -- 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 b.schombe at gmail.com Tue Oct 19 11:29:13 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:29:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] Final text of letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) ACADEMIE DES TIC *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914 email: b.schombe at gmail.com blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2010/10/19 Jeremy Malcolm > Here is a version of the text to which the ICC and ISOC are also agreed. > The changes are minor. Before making a consensus call, we are still > clarifying one of the changes, which is the statement that there will be > three representatives rather than one allowed to summarise the submissions > of the non-governmental stakeholders. Perhaps this has been agreed > privately and we have not yet been informed. > > Once we clarify this, due to the unanimity of support for this letter > already already expressed on the list, it is probably not necessary to > subject you all to an another online poll to make a consensus call. > Instead, I propose that Izumi and I will make that call based on list > statements only. If anyone disagrees, please let us know. > > His Excellency Sha Zukang > Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs United Nations > 3 United Nations Plaza > New York, NY 10017 > *Dear Undersecretary General Sha Zukang*Your Excellency*,* > Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil > society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to > participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. > Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter > explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving > all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the > process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public > policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced > participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and > responsibilities." > In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled *for 14 > December* in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC > resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental > stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to > nominate a single representative *of each stakeholder group (Internet > technical community, civil society and business) *to speak during the > consultations to summarize the contributions of all *that non-governmental > stakeholder*s* group*. > *In our respectful view *We respectfully submit that this does not amount > to the open and inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is > effectively an intergovernmental consultation *with constrained > participation by the other stakeholders who are critical to the continued > development of the Information Society*. This runs counter to the > principle established at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) > including that "The international management of the Internet should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and > international organizations.” *In addition, paragraph 71 recognizes > enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in their respective roles and > responsibilities.* > We *understand that limits* acknowledge that the restraints that have been > placed upon the participation of *business,* private sector and civil > society*, and the Internet technical community *stakeholders in this > consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the United > Nations complex in New York. > Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and > inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date > and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following > the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum *(IGF)* that are > already scheduled for 22 November 2010 *or that a larger venue be found at > the UN in New York*. > Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of > Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns *we have*raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. > -- > *Signed by **The Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) > and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)* > > -- > > *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 Tue Oct 19 14:19:29 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:19:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: References: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <56406.2664.qm@web55205.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Hi I have re-read the letter and find that it has the right content and tone. If we have time to do this or feel the need to offer some other recommendations to the matter of "space constraint" at the UN NY, we could suggest one extra " informal session be added to the consultation . This would give all multi-stake holders an opportunity to contribute. This is just a suggestion! regards Shaila challenge the rules ...push the barriers.... ............live beyond your existential means !! From: Jacqueline Morris To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Mon, October 18, 2010 7:32:53 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC I agree, but with one note - in para 3, line 1: "In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for 14 December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires." Should be either "consultation...is" or "consultations .... are". Jacqueline On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: Here is the same text as just posted, but with the changes merged and with "civil society" now placed first in the list of stakeholders; an amendment which Izumi proposed and which ISOC has agreed to (I doubt ICC will object either). > > >On the point about the number of representatives of non-governmental >stakeholders, it seems that we needlessly assumed the worst. Re-reading the >invitation letter (at http://mini.me.my/h) the interpretation that there will be >three representatives does seem the most sensible one ("the views of civil >society and private sector organisations, as well as the Internet technical >community, will be summarized for presentation by a designated representative, >who will base the group's presentation on submissions received"). > > >Since many of you have already expressed your support for the letter, I suggest >that during the next 72 hours: > > >* Those who previously agreed with the letter, but who do not agree with the >minor changes from ISOC and the ICC, reply to state your objection. > > >* Those who do not agree with either form of the letter, please reply to state >your objection. > > >* Those who agree and have not already said so, may reply to say so. > > >Then 72 hours from now (the Charter requires 48 hours) Izumi and I will >determine whether we have reached a rough consensus. Here, then, is the final >text: > > > > >His Excellency ShaZukang >Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs >United Nations >3 United Nations Plaza >New York, NY 10017 > > >Dear Undersecretary General ShaZukang, > > >Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil society and >private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to participate in >consultations in New York on 14th December. > > >Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter >explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving all >Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process of >enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public policy issues >pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced participation of all >stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities." > > >In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for 14 >December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC >resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental >stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to nominate a >single representative of each stakeholder group (civil society, Internet >technical community and business) to speak during the consultations to summarize >the contributions of that non-governmental stakeholder group. > > >In our respectful view this does not amount to the open and inclusive >consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an >intergovernmental consultation with constrained participation by the other >stakeholders who are critical to the continued development of the Information >Society. This runs counter to the principle established at the World Summit on >the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The international management of >the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full >involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and >international organizations.” In addition, paragraph 71 recognizes enhanced >cooperation involves all stakeholders in their respective roles and >responsibilities. > > >We understand that limits that have been placed upon the participation of civil >society, business and the Internet technical community stakeholders in this >consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the United >Nations complex in New York. > > >Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and >inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date and >venue be changed to the Palaisdes Nations in Geneva, perhaps following the open >consultations of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are already scheduled >for 22 November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at the UN in New York. > > >Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of Internet >governance, and for considering the important concerns we have raised above. We >look forward to receiving your response in due course. >-- > > >Signed by >The Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) and the >International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) >-- >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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Oct 19 17:15:25 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 02:15:25 +0500 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> References: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Once again, well done all and I agree with the text! This should be the go now! -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Here is the same text as just posted, but with the changes merged and with > "civil society" now placed first in the list of stakeholders; an amendment > which Izumi proposed and which ISOC has agreed to (I doubt ICC will object > either). > On the point about the number of representatives of non-governmental > stakeholders, it seems that we needlessly assumed the worst.  Re-reading the > invitation letter (at http://mini.me.my/h) the interpretation that there > will be three representatives does seem the most sensible one ("the views of > civil society and private sector organisations, as well as the Internet > technical community, will be summarized for presentation by a designated > representative, who will base the group's presentation on submissions > received"). > Since many of you have already expressed your support for the letter, I > suggest that during the next 72 hours: > * Those who previously agreed with the letter, but who do not agree with the > minor changes from ISOC and the ICC, reply to state your objection. > * Those who do not agree with either form of the letter, please reply to > state your objection. > * Those who agree and have not already said so, may reply to say so. > Then 72 hours from now (the Charter requires 48 hours) Izumi and I will > determine whether we have reached a rough consensus.  Here, then, is the > final text: > > His Excellency Sha Zukang > Under Secretary General for Economic and Social AffairsUnited Nations > 3 United Nations Plaza > New York, NY 10017 > Dear Undersecretary General Sha Zukang, > Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil society > and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to participate in > consultations in New York on 14th December. > Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter > explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving > all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the > process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public > policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced > participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and > responsibilities." > In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for 14 > December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC > resolution requires.  Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental > stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to > nominate a single representative of each stakeholder group (civil society, > Internet technical community and business) to speak during the consultations > to summarize the contributions of that non-governmental stakeholder group. > In our respectful view this does not amount to the open and inclusive > consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an > intergovernmental consultation with constrained participation by the other > stakeholders who are critical to the continued development of the > Information Society. This runs counter to the principle established at the > World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The > international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent > and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private > sector, civil society and international organizations.” In addition, > paragraph 71 recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in > their respective roles and responsibilities. > We understand that limits that have been placed upon the participation > of civil society, business and the Internet technical community stakeholders > in this consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the > United Nations complex in New York. > Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and > inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date > and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following > the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are > already scheduled for 22 November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at > the UN in New York. > Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of > Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns we > have raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due > course.-- > Signed byThe Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) and the > International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) > > -- > > 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 goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Tue Oct 19 19:28:58 2010 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:28:58 -0300 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> References: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> Message-ID: My positive vote for this final text. Thanks. Best, Roxana 2010/10/18 Jeremy Malcolm > Here is the same text as just posted, but with the changes merged and > with "civil society" now placed first in the list of stakeholders; an > amendment which Izumi proposed and which ISOC has agreed to (I doubt ICC > will object either). > > On the point about the number of representatives of non-governmental > stakeholders, it seems that we needlessly assumed the worst. Re-reading the > invitation letter (at http://mini.me.my/h) the interpretation that there > will be three representatives does seem the most sensible one ("the views of > civil society and private sector organisations, as well as the Internet > technical community, will be summarized for presentation by a designated > representative, who will base the group's presentation on submissions > received"). > > Since many of you have already expressed your support for the letter, I > suggest that during the next 72 hours: > > * Those who previously agreed with the letter, but who do not agree with > the minor changes from ISOC and the ICC, reply to state your objection. > > * Those who do not agree with either form of the letter, please reply to > state your objection. > > * Those who agree and have not already said so, may reply to say so. > > Then 72 hours from now (the Charter requires 48 hours) Izumi and I will > determine whether we have reached a rough consensus. Here, then, is the > final text: > > > His Excellency Sha Zukang > Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs United Nations > 3 United Nations Plaza > New York, NY 10017 > Dear Undersecretary General Sha Zukang, > Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil > society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to > participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. > Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter > explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving > all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the > process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public > policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced > participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and > responsibilities." > In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for 14 > December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC > resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental > stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to > nominate a single representative of each stakeholder group (civil society, > Internet technical community and business) to speak during the consultations > to summarize the contributions of that non-governmental stakeholder group. > In our respectful view this does not amount to the open and inclusive > consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an > intergovernmental consultation with constrained participation by the other > stakeholders who are critical to the continued development of the > Information Society. This runs counter to the principle established at the > World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The > international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent > and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private > sector, civil society and international organizations.” In addition, > paragraph 71 recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in > their respective roles and responsibilities. > We understand that limits that have been placed upon the participation > of civil society, business and the Internet technical > community stakeholders in this consultation are said to be as a result of > space constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. > Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and > inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date > and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following > the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are > already scheduled for 22 November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at > the UN in New York. > Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of > Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns we > have raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. > -- > Signed by The Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) and > the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) > > -- > > *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 Tue Oct 19 21:18:04 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 23:18:04 -0200 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: References: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4CBE434C.6030602@cafonso.ca> +1 --c.a. On 10/19/2010 07:15 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Once again, well done all and I agree with the text! > > This should be the go now! > -- 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 b.schombe at gmail.com Wed Oct 20 05:57:15 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:57:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> References: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> Message-ID: It's good, I agree SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) ACADEMIE DES TIC *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914 email: b.schombe at gmail.com blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2010/10/19 Jeremy Malcolm > Here is the same text as just posted, but with the changes merged and with > "civil society" now placed first in the list of stakeholders; an amendment > which Izumi proposed and which ISOC has agreed to (I doubt ICC will object > either). > > On the point about the number of representatives of non-governmental > stakeholders, it seems that we needlessly assumed the worst. Re-reading the > invitation letter (at http://mini.me.my/h) the interpretation that there > will be three representatives does seem the most sensible one ("the views of > civil society and private sector organisations, as well as the Internet > technical community, will be summarized for presentation by a designated > representative, who will base the group's presentation on submissions > received"). > > Since many of you have already expressed your support for the letter, I > suggest that during the next 72 hours: > > * Those who previously agreed with the letter, but who do not agree with > the minor changes from ISOC and the ICC, reply to state your objection. > > * Those who do not agree with either form of the letter, please reply to > state your objection. > > * Those who agree and have not already said so, may reply to say so. > > Then 72 hours from now (the Charter requires 48 hours) Izumi and I will > determine whether we have reached a rough consensus. Here, then, is the > final text: > > > His Excellency Sha Zukang > Under Secretary General for Economic and Social AffairsUnited Nations > 3 United Nations Plaza > New York, NY 10017 > Dear Undersecretary General Sha Zukang, > Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil > society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to > participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. > Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter > explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving > all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the > process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public > policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced > participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and > responsibilities." > In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for 14 > December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC > resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental > stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to > nominate a single representative of each stakeholder group (civil society, > Internet technical community and business) to speak during the consultations > to summarize the contributions of that non-governmental stakeholder group. > In our respectful view this does not amount to the open and inclusive > consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an > intergovernmental consultation with constrained participation by the other > stakeholders who are critical to the continued development of the > Information Society. This runs counter to the principle established at the > World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The > international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent > and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private > sector, civil society and international organizations.” In addition, > paragraph 71 recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in > their respective roles and responsibilities. > We understand that limits that have been placed upon the participation > of civil society, business and the Internet technical > community stakeholders in this consultation are said to be as a result of > space constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. > Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and > inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date > and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following > the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are > already scheduled for 22 November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at > the UN in New York. > Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of > Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns we > have raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. > -- > Signed byThe Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) and > the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) > > -- > > *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 Wed Oct 20 21:53:24 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 07:23:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: References: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I support this, with the suggestion that finer changes be made in line with Adam Peake's notes. Sivasubramanian M http://www.isocmadras.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > It's good, I agree > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) > ACADEMIE DES TIC > *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC > *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE > *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) > > Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914 > email: b.schombe at gmail.com > blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > > > 2010/10/19 Jeremy Malcolm > > Here is the same text as just posted, but with the changes merged and with >> "civil society" now placed first in the list of stakeholders; an amendment >> which Izumi proposed and which ISOC has agreed to (I doubt ICC will object >> either). >> >> On the point about the number of representatives of non-governmental >> stakeholders, it seems that we needlessly assumed the worst. Re-reading the >> invitation letter (at http://mini.me.my/h) the interpretation that there >> will be three representatives does seem the most sensible one ("the views of >> civil society and private sector organisations, as well as the Internet >> technical community, will be summarized for presentation by a designated >> representative, who will base the group's presentation on submissions >> received"). >> >> Since many of you have already expressed your support for the letter, I >> suggest that during the next 72 hours: >> >> * Those who previously agreed with the letter, but who do not agree with >> the minor changes from ISOC and the ICC, reply to state your objection. >> >> * Those who do not agree with either form of the letter, please reply to >> state your objection. >> >> * Those who agree and have not already said so, may reply to say so. >> >> Then 72 hours from now (the Charter requires 48 hours) Izumi and I will >> determine whether we have reached a rough consensus. Here, then, is the >> final text: >> >> >> His Excellency Sha Zukang >> Under Secretary General for Economic and Social AffairsUnited Nations >> 3 United Nations Plaza >> New York, NY 10017 >> Dear Undersecretary General Sha Zukang, >> Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil >> society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to >> participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. >> Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter >> explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving >> all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the >> process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public >> policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced >> participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and >> responsibilities." >> In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for 14 >> December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC >> resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental >> stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to >> nominate a single representative of each stakeholder group (civil society, >> Internet technical community and business) to speak during the consultations >> to summarize the contributions of that non-governmental stakeholder group. >> In our respectful view this does not amount to the open and inclusive >> consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an >> intergovernmental consultation with constrained participation by the other >> stakeholders who are critical to the continued development of the >> Information Society. This runs counter to the principle established at the >> World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The >> international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent >> and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private >> sector, civil society and international organizations.” In addition, >> paragraph 71 recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in >> their respective roles and responsibilities. >> We understand that limits that have been placed upon the participation >> of civil society, business and the Internet technical >> community stakeholders in this consultation are said to be as a result of >> space constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. >> Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and >> inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date >> and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following >> the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are >> already scheduled for 22 November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at >> the UN in New York. >> Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of >> Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns we >> have raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. >> -- >> Signed byThe Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) and >> the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) >> >> -- >> >> *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 toml at communisphere.com Wed Oct 20 23:49:44 2010 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 23:49:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: References: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4CBFB858.1050703@communisphere.com> I look forward to this being sent. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt ----------------------------------------------- Thomas Lowenhaupt, Founder & Chair Connecting.nyc Inc. tom at connectingnyc.org Jackson Hts., NYC 11372 718 639 4222 Web Wiki Blog > > 2010/10/19 Jeremy Malcolm > > > Here is the same text as just posted, but with the changes > merged and with "civil society" now placed first in the list > of stakeholders; an amendment which Izumi proposed and which > ISOC has agreed to (I doubt ICC will object either). > > On the point about the number of representatives of > non-governmental stakeholders, it seems that we needlessly > assumed the worst. Re-reading the invitation letter (at > http://mini.me.my/h) the interpretation that there will be > three representatives does seem the most sensible one ("the > views of civil society and private sector organisations, as > well as the Internet technical community, will be summarized > for presentation by a designated representative, who will base > the group's presentation on submissions received"). > > Since many of you have already expressed your support for the > letter, I suggest that during the next 72 hours: > > * Those who previously agreed with the letter, but who do not > agree with the minor changes from ISOC and the ICC, reply to > state your objection. > > * Those who do not agree with either form of the letter, > please reply to state your objection. > > * Those who agree and have not already said so, may reply to > say so. > > Then 72 hours from now (the Charter requires 48 hours) Izumi > and I will determine whether we have reached a rough > consensus. Here, then, is the final text: > > > His Excellency Sha Zukang > > Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs > United Nations > 3 United Nations Plaza > New York, NY 10017 > > Dear Undersecretary General Sha Zukang, > > Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to > civil society and private sector stakeholders, in which you > invite them to participate in consultations in New York on > 14th December. > > Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, > the letter explains that these are meant as "open and > inclusive consultations involving all Member States and other > stakeholders with a view to assisting the process of enhanced > cooperation ... in respect of international public policy > issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced > participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles > and responsibilities." > > In this context we are concerned that the > consultations scheduled for 14 December in New York is not in > fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires. > Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental > stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, > and to nominate a single representative of each stakeholder > group (civil society, Internet technical community and > business) to speak during the consultations to summarize the > contributions of that non-governmental stakeholder group. > > In our respectful view this does not amount to the open and > inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is > effectively an intergovernmental consultation with constrained > participation by the other stakeholders who are critical to > the continued development of the Information Society. This > runs counter to the principle established at the World Summit > on the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The > international management of the Internet should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full > involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society > and international organizations.” In addition, paragraph 71 > recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in > their respective roles and responsibilities. > > We understand that limits that have been placed upon the > participation of civil society, > business and the Internet technical community stakeholders in > this consultation are said to be as a result of space > constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. > > Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing > wide and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this > consultation, the date and venue be changed to the Palais des > Nations in Geneva, perhaps following the open consultations of > the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are already scheduled > for 22 November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at the UN > in New York. > > Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder > process of Internet governance, and for considering the > important concerns we have raised above. We look forward to > receiving your response in due course. > -- > > Signed by > The Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) > and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) > > -- > > *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 tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Thu Oct 21 01:31:23 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 01:31:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: <4CBFB858.1050703@communisphere.com> References: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> <4CBFB858.1050703@communisphere.com> Message-ID: +1 Excellent text ... Great work. Best, Tracy On 10/20/10, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > I look forward to this being sent. > > Best, > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > > ----------------------------------------------- > Thomas Lowenhaupt, Founder & Chair > Connecting.nyc Inc. > tom at connectingnyc.org > Jackson Hts., NYC 11372 > 718 639 4222 > Web Wiki > Blog > > > >> >> 2010/10/19 Jeremy Malcolm > > >> >> Here is the same text as just posted, but with the changes >> merged and with "civil society" now placed first in the list >> of stakeholders; an amendment which Izumi proposed and which >> ISOC has agreed to (I doubt ICC will object either). >> >> On the point about the number of representatives of >> non-governmental stakeholders, it seems that we needlessly >> assumed the worst. Re-reading the invitation letter (at >> http://mini.me.my/h) the interpretation that there will be >> three representatives does seem the most sensible one ("the >> views of civil society and private sector organisations, as >> well as the Internet technical community, will be summarized >> for presentation by a designated representative, who will base >> the group's presentation on submissions received"). >> >> Since many of you have already expressed your support for the >> letter, I suggest that during the next 72 hours: >> >> * Those who previously agreed with the letter, but who do not >> agree with the minor changes from ISOC and the ICC, reply to >> state your objection. >> >> * Those who do not agree with either form of the letter, >> please reply to state your objection. >> >> * Those who agree and have not already said so, may reply to >> say so. >> >> Then 72 hours from now (the Charter requires 48 hours) Izumi >> and I will determine whether we have reached a rough >> consensus. Here, then, is the final text: >> >> >> His Excellency Sha Zukang >> >> Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs >> United Nations >> 3 United Nations Plaza >> New York, NY 10017 >> >> Dear Undersecretary General Sha Zukang, >> >> Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to >> civil society and private sector stakeholders, in which you >> invite them to participate in consultations in New York on >> 14th December. >> >> Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, >> the letter explains that these are meant as "open and >> inclusive consultations involving all Member States and other >> stakeholders with a view to assisting the process of enhanced >> cooperation ... in respect of international public policy >> issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced >> participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles >> and responsibilities." >> >> In this context we are concerned that the >> consultations scheduled for 14 December in New York is not in >> fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires. >> Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental >> stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, >> and to nominate a single representative of each stakeholder >> group (civil society, Internet technical community and >> business) to speak during the consultations to summarize the >> contributions of that non-governmental stakeholder group. >> >> In our respectful view this does not amount to the open and >> inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is >> effectively an intergovernmental consultation with constrained >> participation by the other stakeholders who are critical to >> the continued development of the Information Society. This >> runs counter to the principle established at the World Summit >> on the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The >> international management of the Internet should be >> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full >> involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society >> and international organizations.” In addition, paragraph 71 >> recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in >> their respective roles and responsibilities. >> >> We understand that limits that have been placed upon the >> participation of civil society, >> business and the Internet technical community stakeholders in >> this consultation are said to be as a result of space >> constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. >> >> Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing >> wide and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this >> consultation, the date and venue be changed to the Palais des >> Nations in Geneva, perhaps following the open consultations of >> the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are already scheduled >> for 22 November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at the UN >> in New York. >> >> Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder >> process of Internet governance, and for considering the >> important concerns we have raised above. We look forward to >> receiving your response in due course. >> -- >> >> Signed by >> The Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) >> and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) >> >> -- >> >> *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 >> >> > -- 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Oct 21 07:53:18 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:53:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011, 16 to 20 May Geneva In-Reply-To: <4CBD6936.9060202@itforchange.net> References: <4CBC9C42.1080801@apc.org> <4CBD427D.3070809@itforchange.net> <41784D1C-ED35-4DC4-8256-8CBF67BE520D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4CBD6936.9060202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <982CDE0C-6142-48D4-B1AF-9FEBCF539AD4@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi On Oct 19, 2010, at 11:47 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 19 October 2010 03:01 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> On Oct 19, 2010, at 9:02 AM, parminder wrote: >> >>> It is significant that the WSIS forum will not be shifted to New York as was mooted. Could have implications for negotiations around improvement/ changes to the IGF, likely to take place in a few days at th UN Gen Assembly. This has further reduced the chances of the IGF secretariat shifting to New York, as is feared by some. Parminder >> >> I'm pretty surprised by this shift, as there have been statements at the Plenipot in Guadalajara by governments with presumably good access to the ITU secretariat that referred to the forum being held in New York. One has to wonder about the coordination and who is really in which loop, but as it's all non-transparent wondering is all we can do. Would be interesting to know though if the concerns expressed by non-state actors actually had some impact. >> >> How this may relate to the IGF issue is also hard to judge, but it doesn't hurt. > > One of the suggestion was to roll IGF up into the general WSIS forum, which would still be very bad even if WSIS forum stays in Geneva, but if WSIS forum had moved to NY, the pulls for IGF sect. to move to NY would have been stronger. Right there could have been some negative synergies with any near-term discussions on the secretariat, which was my concern when the locations were being discussed here in terms of their relative travel convenience. On the other hand, the ITU wasn't saying it wanted to move all future WSIS forums to NYC and certainly wasn't offering to give up the secretariat role to DESA; the Russian proposal got no traction in Guadalajara; and if there are actors working behind the scenes for a change, it's not clear they'd be deterred by the WSIS Forum being in Geneva. So it doesn't hurt, but it's hard to know whether it helps. Relatedly, the ICC and ISOC with the support of France will hold an information session today in New York October to brief governments' UN mission representatives. No webcast alas, or mention of CS involvement. The background note for the meeting http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/ICC_ISOC_IGF_briefing_note_19Oct10.pdf directly addresses the point we've been cautiously dancing around and endorses an IGF "Led by an independent secretariat based in Geneva where the Internet policy networks and the history of the WSIS lie: it is important for stakeholders to feel they can trust the secretariat to be unbiased and not unduly influenced by any one interest." Now that they've put the issue on the table, wouldn't it make sense for IGC to say something similar? Best, Bill PS: The ICC says "Deliberations start on 26 October and the final decision will be taken by early December." Just looked at the UN GA webcast site http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/c/general-assembly.html and it looks like yesterday they talked about "the culture of peace," which is item 15 on the agenda. IGF renewal is part of item 17, "Information and communications technologies for development" to be considered by the second committee. So unless they're proceeding at a real snail's pace or out of sequence, one would think they might get to this sooner than next Tuesday. Does anyone have current info? *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Thu Oct 21 11:29:40 2010 From: pouzin at well.com (Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:29:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: References: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I fully approve. Thanks for superb wording. - - - On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Here is the same text as just posted, but with the changes merged and with > "civil society" now placed first in the list of stakeholders; an amendment > which Izumi proposed and which ISOC has agreed to (I doubt ICC will object > either). > > On the point about the number of representatives of non-governmental > stakeholders, it seems that we needlessly assumed the worst. Re-reading the > invitation letter (at http://mini.me.my/h) the interpretation that there > will be three representatives does seem the most sensible one ("the views of > civil society and private sector organisations, as well as the Internet > technical community, will be summarized for presentation by a designated > representative, who will base the group's presentation on submissions > received"). > > Since many of you have already expressed your support for the letter, I > suggest that during the next 72 hours: > > * Those who previously agreed with the letter, but who do not agree with > the minor changes from ISOC and the ICC, reply to state your objection. > > * Those who do not agree with either form of the letter, please reply to > state your objection. > > * Those who agree and have not already said so, may reply to say so. > > Then 72 hours from now (the Charter requires 48 hours) Izumi and I will > determine whether we have reached a rough consensus. Here, then, is the > final text: > > > His Excellency Sha Zukang > Under Secretary General for Economic and Social AffairsUnited Nations > 3 United Nations Plaza > New York, NY 10017 > Dear Undersecretary General Sha Zukang, > Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil > society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to > participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. > Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter > explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving > all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the > process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public > policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced > participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and > responsibilities." > In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for 14 > December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC > resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental > stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to > nominate a single representative of each stakeholder group (civil society, > Internet technical community and business) to speak during the consultations > to summarize the contributions of that non-governmental stakeholder group. > In our respectful view this does not amount to the open and inclusive > consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an > intergovernmental consultation with constrained participation by the other > stakeholders who are critical to the continued development of the > Information Society. This runs counter to the principle established at the > World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The > international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent > and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private > sector, civil society and international organizations.” In addition, > paragraph 71 recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in > their respective roles and responsibilities. > We understand that limits that have been placed upon the participation > of civil society, business and the Internet technical > community stakeholders in this consultation are said to be as a result of > space constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. > Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and > inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date > and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following > the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are > already scheduled for 22 November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at > the UN in New York. > Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of > Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns we > have raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. > -- > Signed byThe Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) and > the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) > > -- > > *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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at isoc-mu.org Thu Oct 21 12:01:01 2010 From: dave at isoc-mu.org (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 20:01:01 +0400 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: References: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <87026183C3E64599AC7611B7DBE6F710@director> +1 Thanks and best regards Dave Kissoondoyal MBA, ACMI CE0 - KMPGlobal Ltd President - Internet Society of Mauritius | Member - ICANN At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) | Member - PIR .ORG Advisory Council |) Tel 230 2578703 | Fax +230 6778059 | Royal Road, Union Park. Mauritius | Email dave at kmpglobal.com | http://www.kmpglobal.com _____ From: pouzin at gmail.com [mailto:pouzin at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Pouzin (well) Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 7:30 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC I fully approve. Thanks for superb wording. - - - On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: Here is the same text as just posted, but with the changes merged and with "civil society" now placed first in the list of stakeholders; an amendment which Izumi proposed and which ISOC has agreed to (I doubt ICC will object either). On the point about the number of representatives of non-governmental stakeholders, it seems that we needlessly assumed the worst. Re-reading the invitation letter (at http://mini.me.my/h) the interpretation that there will be three representatives does seem the most sensible one ("the views of civil society and private sector organisations, as well as the Internet technical community, will be summarized for presentation by a designated representative, who will base the group's presentation on submissions received"). Since many of you have already expressed your support for the letter, I suggest that during the next 72 hours: * Those who previously agreed with the letter, but who do not agree with the minor changes from ISOC and the ICC, reply to state your objection. * Those who do not agree with either form of the letter, please reply to state your objection. * Those who agree and have not already said so, may reply to say so. Then 72 hours from now (the Charter requires 48 hours) Izumi and I will determine whether we have reached a rough consensus. Here, then, is the final text: His Excellency Sha Zukang Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs United Nations 3 United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017 Dear Undersecretary General Sha Zukang, Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities." In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for 14 December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to nominate a single representative of each stakeholder group (civil society, Internet technical community and business) to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of that non-governmental stakeholder group. In our respectful view this does not amount to the open and inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an intergovernmental consultation with constrained participation by the other stakeholders who are critical to the continued development of the Information Society. This runs counter to the principle established at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations." In addition, paragraph 71 recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities. We understand that limits that have been placed upon the participation of civil society, business and the Internet technical community stakeholders in this consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at the UN in New York. Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns we have raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. -- Signed by The Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 21 12:24:40 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:24:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] NetNeutrality References: <4CBC9C42.1080801@apc.org> <4CBD427D.3070809@itforchange.net> <41784D1C-ED35-4DC4-8256-8CBF67BE520D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4CBD6936.9060202@itforchange.net> <982CDE0C-6142-48D4-B1AF-9FEBCF539AD4@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A072D8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/NetNeutrality_report_20101019.pdf 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Oct 21 12:26:50 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:26:50 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011, 16 to 20 May Geneva References: <4CBC9C42.1080801@apc.org> <4CBD427D.3070809@itforchange.net> <41784D1C-ED35-4DC4-8256-8CBF67BE520D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4CBD6936.9060202@itforchange.net> <982CDE0C-6142-48D4-B1AF-9FEBCF539AD4@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A072D9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Bill: The ICC says "Deliberations start on 26 October and the final decision will be taken by early December." Just looked at the UN GA webcast site http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/c/general-assembly.html and it looks like yesterday they talked about "the culture of peace," which is item 15 on the agenda. IGF renewal is part of item 17, "Information and communications technologies for development" to be considered by the second committee. So unless they're proceeding at a real snail's pace or out of sequence, one would think they might get to this sooner than next Tuesday. Does anyone have current info? Wolfgang: The only informaiton I have is that some delegates will go directly from Guadalajara to New York. ITU ends this weekend, so Tuesday is probably the correct date for the start. Normally the 2nd committee works until late November. I expect a first draft resolution, than some negotiaitons and a second dradft early December which then goes to the Plenary for adoption mid December. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 21 13:49:15 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 23:19:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] The Militarization Of The Internet Message-ID: Hello "The Militarization of the Internet" by Susan Crawford http://www.circleid.com/posts/20101020_the_militarization_of_the_internet/ Sivasubramanian M http://turiya.co.in http://www.isocmadras.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Thu Oct 21 19:04:46 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:04:46 +0900 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: <87026183C3E64599AC7611B7DBE6F710@director> References: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> <87026183C3E64599AC7611B7DBE6F710@director> Message-ID: Hi, As we approach to the 72 hour consensus call deadline within a few hours, and it seems we have almost unanimous support, and Jeremy is or will be in the air by then, I plan to declare the consensus then. Before doing so, here is the final text taking Jacqueline's and Adam's suggestions for minor edit. I also added "Civil Society" to the Internet Governance Caucus following the letter we sent to the UN SG: http://www.igcaucus.org/node/35 And also put the date, "October 22, 2010", for the record. I hope this is all OK and then sent to Mr. Sha. jointly signed by IGC, ICC and ISOC. Just for the confirmation. izumi ------------------- October 22, 2010 His Excellency Mr. Sha Zukang Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs United Nations 3 United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017 Dear Mr. Sha, Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities." In this context we are concerned that the consultation scheduled for 14 December in New York is not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to nominate a single representative of each stakeholder group (civil society, Internet technical community and business) to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of that non-governmental stakeholder group. In our respectful view this does not amount to the open and inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an intergovernmental consultation with constrained participation by the other stakeholders who are critical to the continued development of the Information Society. This runs counter to the principle established at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) including that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” In addition, paragraph 71 recognizes enhanced cooperation involves all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities. We understand that limits that have been placed upon the participation of civil society, business and the Internet technical community stakeholders in this consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010 or that a larger venue be found at the UN in New York. Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns we have raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. -- Signed by The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Thu Oct 21 22:12:18 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:12:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: <87026183C3E64599AC7611B7DBE6F710@director> References: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> <87026183C3E64599AC7611B7DBE6F710@director> Message-ID: Dear list, The 72 hours have passed since Jeremy put the consensus call and there have been unanimous support, no objection recognized. So I would like to declare that we reached the consensus and now move to send the letter as the joint statement with ISOC and ICC together. I thank all of your support and advice. As the almost my first job to be the co-coordinator, I feel particularly honored to do this. This is but a tiny step towards the upcoming, and perhaps uphill struggle to advance our cause in the Internet Governance debate. Jeremy and I will do all our best to keep our spirit high, and for that we really need your support and collaboration just like shown for this event. I also extend our thanks to ISOC and ICC, Bill and Ayesha, for their prompt and encouraging actions. We hope that we keep this working relationship all the way. Thank you again, izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 00:57:05 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:57:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: References: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> <87026183C3E64599AC7611B7DBE6F710@director> Message-ID: <356767.7148.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Well Played, Izumi. Reagrds Imran ________________________________ From: Izumi AIZU To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: Bill Graham ; HASSAN Ayesha Sent: Fri, 22 October, 2010 7:12:18 Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC Dear list, The 72 hours have passed since Jeremy put the consensus call and there have been unanimous support, no objection recognized. So I would like to declare that we reached the consensus and now move to send the letter as the joint statement with ISOC and ICC together. I thank all of your support and advice. As the almost my first job to be the co-coordinator, I feel particularly honored to do this. This is but a tiny step towards the upcoming, and perhaps uphill struggle to advance our cause in the Internet Governance debate. Jeremy and I will do all our best to keep our spirit high, and for that we really need your support and collaboration just like shown for this event. I also extend our thanks to ISOC and ICC, Bill and Ayesha, for their prompt and encouraging actions. We hope that we keep this working relationship all the way. Thank you again, izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Oct 22 02:50:40 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:50:40 +0900 Subject: [governance] Consensus on MAG Questionnaire Message-ID: Dear list, I also have the pleasure to announce that our response to MAG Questionnaire, below has reached a rough consensus using the online poll. Here is the original questionnaire at the IGF site: http://intgovforum.org/cms/the-preparatory-process/510 And the poll was made here: http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/index.php?lang=en&sid=85737&token=397rhc339f6ahss According to Jeremy, there have been 49 complete responses - 48 in favour, one against. There was no reason mentioned in this response of against it. I don't have the access to the result directly, thus cannot share the breakdown of the poll now. And frankly I am not sure if we should share that or not, but Jeremy will deal with that after he lands. best, izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 04:14:25 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:14:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Consensus on MAG Questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42464.13995.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Izumi, Thank you for sharing the results. I just have added my contribution on the survey. As you mentioned that 'one against. There was no reason mentioned in this response of against it', if you review, there was no option to mention any alternate remarks or to mention a reason if someone is not agree. Even, he agrees on 40%, he has to click on yes I agree. If someone has additional suggestions, there is no text blocks to write.   Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmad Shah 0092-300-4130617 Urdu internet Society (UISoc.org) ________________________________ From: Izumi AIZU To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Fri, 22 October, 2010 11:50:40 Subject: [governance] Consensus on MAG Questionnaire Dear list, I also have the pleasure to announce that our response to MAG Questionnaire, below has  reached a rough consensus using the online poll. Here is the original questionnaire at the IGF site: http://intgovforum.org/cms/the-preparatory-process/510 And the poll was made here: http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/index.php?lang=en&sid=85737&token=397rhc339f6ahss According to Jeremy, there have been 49 complete responses - 48 in favour, one against. There was no reason mentioned in this response of against it. I don't have the access to the result directly, thus cannot share the breakdown of the poll now.  And frankly I am not sure if we should share that or not, but Jeremy will deal with that after he lands. best, izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 04:17:31 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:17:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC In-Reply-To: References: <81FF6098-4213-4F1A-8CAB-D350534E2B48@ciroap.org> <87026183C3E64599AC7611B7DBE6F710@director> Message-ID: <299569.50552.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Izumi, I would like to add the support of Urdu Internet Society (UISoc) to the final draft letter.   Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmad Shah 0092-300-4130617 Urdu internet Society (UISoc.org) ________________________________ From: Izumi AIZU To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: Bill Graham ; HASSAN Ayesha Sent: Fri, 22 October, 2010 7:12:18 Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus call on letter from IGC, ICC and ISOC Dear list, The 72 hours have passed since Jeremy put the consensus call and there have been unanimous support, no objection recognized. So I would like to declare that we reached the consensus and now move to send the letter as the joint statement with ISOC and ICC together. I thank all of your support and advice. As the almost my first job to be the co-coordinator, I feel particularly honored to do this. This is but a tiny step towards the upcoming, and perhaps uphill struggle to advance our cause in the Internet Governance debate. Jeremy and I will do all our best to keep our spirit high, and for that we really need your support and collaboration just like shown for this event. I also extend our thanks to ISOC and ICC, Bill and Ayesha, for their prompt and encouraging actions. We hope that we keep this working relationship all the way. Thank you again, izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Oct 22 04:59:59 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:59:59 +0800 Subject: [governance] Consensus on MAG Questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22/10/2010, at 2:50 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Here is the original questionnaire at the IGF site: > http://intgovforum.org/cms/the-preparatory-process/510 > > And the poll was made here: > http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/index.php?lang=en&sid=85737&token=397rhc339f6ahss Actually that link won't work for anyone else because it contains Izumi's private token. But I now made the poll results public and they are here: http://www.igcaucus.org/node/40 The questionnaire and the open letter are both also linked from here: http://www.igcaucus.org/statements -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Fri Oct 22 14:24:51 2010 From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?WXJq9iBM5G5zaXB1cm8=?=) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 21:24:51 +0300 Subject: [governance] ITU in Guadalajara Message-ID: Dear all, Since there were alarming reports on the list some weeks ago about what might happen at the ITU Plenipot in Guadalajara (trying to take over the GAC or to merge IGF with WSIS Forum...) I'm happy to report that such and similar proposals, that had indeed been made, evaporated in the negotiation process and that the outcome actually might open new avenues for "ITU's collaboration and coordination with other relevant organizations". Call for this was included in identical for in all four internet-related resolutions, each with a footnote saying that these organizations include but are not limited to ICANN, ISOC, the RIR´s, IETF and W3C. This is the first time to my knowledge that the name of ICANN appears in a ITU resolution, and the decision was preceded by a long and -at times - rather heated debate. This result was seen in Guadalajara as a harbinger of change in ITU's attitude towards today's realities, and a sign of the shrinking of the faction that has preferred not to acknowledge them. The deadlock was broken late during the last plenary after the Sectetary-General's strong plea for more open attitude towards other players. Best, Yrjö -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Fri Oct 22 18:58:30 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 07:58:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] ITU in Guadalajara In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yrjö, Thank you so much for sharing this rather important and encouraging news. I understand many of you have been there for a long time, with long and tiring negotiations and debates. And I hope this will bring more open attitudes of ITU and its members to the civil society, or mutli and many stakeholders, minority voices etc. In any case, please have a good and resting weekend. And please say hello to all of our friends who are still there. izumi 2010/10/23 Yrjö Länsipuro : > Dear all, > Since there were alarming reports on the list some weeks ago about what > might happen at the ITU Plenipot in Guadalajara (trying to take over the GAC > or to merge IGF with WSIS Forum...) I'm happy to report that such and > similar proposals, that had indeed been made,  evaporated in the negotiation > process and  that the outcome actually might open new avenues for "ITU's > collaboration and coordination with other relevant organizations". Call for > this was included in identical for   in all four internet-related > resolutions, each with a footnote saying that these organizations include > but are not limited to ICANN, ISOC, the RIR´s, IETF and W3C.  This is the > first time to my knowledge that the name of ICANN appears in a ITU > resolution, and the decision was preceded by a long and -at times - rather > heated debate. >  This result was seen in Guadalajara as a harbinger of change in ITU's > attitude towards today's realities, and a sign of the shrinking of the > faction that has preferred not to acknowledge them. The deadlock was broken > late during the last plenary after the Sectetary-General's  strong plea for > more open attitude towards other players. > Best, > Yrjö > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 23 04:18:29 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:18:29 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] ITU in Guadalajara References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A072EA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Yrjö interesting to see how realities (and innovative looking forward approaches) reach the bastions of yesteryears tradition. This opens the door for "enhanced cooperation" in a new way and will probably significantly influence the forthcoming consultations by the UN on this issue. Here is another question: What the PP plans to decide with regard to WSOS 2015 (and the role of the ITU PP 2014) in this process? Thanks wolfgang ________________________________ Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU Gesendet: Sa 23.10.2010 00:58 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Yrjö Länsipuro Betreff: Re: [governance] ITU in Guadalajara Yrjö, Thank you so much for sharing this rather important and encouraging news. I understand many of you have been there for a long time, with long and tiring negotiations and debates. And I hope this will bring more open attitudes of ITU and its members to the civil society, or mutli and many stakeholders, minority voices etc. In any case, please have a good and resting weekend. And please say hello to all of our friends who are still there. izumi 2010/10/23 Yrjö Länsipuro : > Dear all, > Since there were alarming reports on the list some weeks ago about what > might happen at the ITU Plenipot in Guadalajara (trying to take over the GAC > or to merge IGF with WSIS Forum...) I'm happy to report that such and > similar proposals, that had indeed been made, evaporated in the negotiation > process and that the outcome actually might open new avenues for "ITU's > collaboration and coordination with other relevant organizations". Call for > this was included in identical for in all four internet-related > resolutions, each with a footnote saying that these organizations include > but are not limited to ICANN, ISOC, the RIR´s, IETF and W3C. This is the > first time to my knowledge that the name of ICANN appears in a ITU > resolution, and the decision was preceded by a long and -at times - rather > heated debate. > This result was seen in Guadalajara as a harbinger of change in ITU's > attitude towards today's realities, and a sign of the shrinking of the > faction that has preferred not to acknowledge them. The deadlock was broken > late during the last plenary after the Sectetary-General's strong plea for > more open attitude towards other players. > Best, > Yrjö > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 23 04:57:01 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 09:57:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] ITU in Guadalajara In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Very good information and I think we were not wrong to voice our views SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) ACADEMIE DES TIC *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914 email: b.schombe at gmail.com blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2010/10/22 Yrjö Länsipuro > Dear all, > > Since there were alarming reports on the list some weeks ago about what > might happen at the ITU Plenipot in Guadalajara (trying to take over the GAC > or to merge IGF with WSIS Forum...) I'm happy to report that such and > similar proposals, that had indeed been made, evaporated in the negotiation > process and that the outcome actually might open new avenues for "ITU's > collaboration and coordination with other relevant organizations". Call for > this was included in identical for in all four internet-related > resolutions, each with a footnote saying that these organizations include > but are not limited to ICANN, ISOC, the RIR´s, IETF and W3C. This is the > first time to my knowledge that the name of ICANN appears in a ITU > resolution, and the decision was preceded by a long and -at times - rather > heated debate. > > This result was seen in Guadalajara as a harbinger of change in ITU's > attitude towards today's realities, and a sign of the shrinking of the > faction that has preferred not to acknowledge them. The deadlock was broken > late during the last plenary after the Sectetary-General's strong plea for > more open attitude towards other players. > > Best, > > Yrjö > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Sat Oct 23 10:48:01 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:48:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU in Guadalajara In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D409@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Very useful post, Yrjö; thanks! But it is really not that surprising in that ITU involves all state actors, not just the ones critical of ICANN, and also quite a few sector members (including ISOC) who are supporters of the U.S.-based, private sector-based regime. So these scenarios of an ITU "takeover" have always been lacking in credibility. --MM From: Yrjö Länsipuro [mailto:yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 2:25 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] ITU in Guadalajara Dear all, Since there were alarming reports on the list some weeks ago about what might happen at the ITU Plenipot in Guadalajara (trying to take over the GAC or to merge IGF with WSIS Forum...) I'm happy to report that such and similar proposals, that had indeed been made, evaporated in the negotiation process and that the outcome actually might open new avenues for "ITU's collaboration and coordination with other relevant organizations". Call for this was included in identical for in all four internet-related resolutions, each with a footnote saying that these organizations include but are not limited to ICANN, ISOC, the RIR´s, IETF and W3C. This is the first time to my knowledge that the name of ICANN appears in a ITU resolution, and the decision was preceded by a long and -at times - rather heated debate. This result was seen in Guadalajara as a harbinger of change in ITU's attitude towards today's realities, and a sign of the shrinking of the faction that has preferred not to acknowledge them. The deadlock was broken late during the last plenary after the Sectetary-General's strong plea for more open attitude towards other players. Best, Yrjö -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Sat Oct 23 13:21:48 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 12:21:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] The Militarization Of The Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136BD61D8A@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> ..every observation and analysis insightful, all the concerns raised hard to successfully contradict. In effect though, its more like we're back to square one; the conceptual idea for the internet was from the military perspective. It just went well beyond what was originally thought of. And now, the race is on to harvest this unexpected 'largesse of riches'. Carlton From: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 12:49 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] The Militarization Of The Internet Hello "The Militarization of the Internet" by Susan Crawford http://www.circleid.com/posts/20101020_the_militarization_of_the_internet/ Sivasubramanian M http://turiya.co.in http://www.isocmadras.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Sat Oct 23 13:38:10 2010 From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?WXJq9iBM5G5zaXB1cm8=?=) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:38:10 +0300 Subject: AW: [governance] ITU in Guadalajara In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A072EA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: ,,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A072EA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfgang, all PP approved a resolution about the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the WSIS, thus carefully following the wording of TA § 111. The SG was instructed to initiate consideration for the preparation of the review in the UN Chief Executives Board (CEB), including the possibility of a high-level event. He was asked to convey to the CEB that multistakeholder approach shoukd be used in the preparations, coordinating them with all stakeholders. The Council (2011) is invited to decide on the role and contribution of ITU to the review. Best, Yrjö > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:18:29 +0200 > From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; aizu at anr.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com > Subject: AW: [governance] ITU in Guadalajara > > Thanks Yrjö > > interesting to see how realities (and innovative looking forward approaches) reach the bastions of yesteryears tradition. This opens the door for "enhanced cooperation" in a new way and will probably significantly influence the forthcoming consultations by the UN on this issue. > > Here is another question: What the PP plans to decide with regard to WSOS 2015 (and the role of the ITU PP 2014) in this process? > > Thanks > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU > Gesendet: Sa 23.10.2010 00:58 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Yrjö Länsipuro > Betreff: Re: [governance] ITU in Guadalajara > > > > Yrjö, > > Thank you so much for sharing this rather important and encouraging > news. I understand many of you have been there for a long time, with > long and tiring negotiations and debates. > > And I hope this will bring more open attitudes of ITU and its members > to the civil society, or mutli and many stakeholders, minority voices > etc. > > In any case, please have a good and resting weekend. > And please say hello to all of our friends who are still there. > > izumi > > > 2010/10/23 Yrjö Länsipuro : > > Dear all, > > Since there were alarming reports on the list some weeks ago about what > > might happen at the ITU Plenipot in Guadalajara (trying to take over the GAC > > or to merge IGF with WSIS Forum...) I'm happy to report that such and > > similar proposals, that had indeed been made, evaporated in the negotiation > > process and that the outcome actually might open new avenues for "ITU's > > collaboration and coordination with other relevant organizations". Call for > > this was included in identical for in all four internet-related > > resolutions, each with a footnote saying that these organizations include > > but are not limited to ICANN, ISOC, the RIR´s, IETF and W3C. This is the > > first time to my knowledge that the name of ICANN appears in a ITU > > resolution, and the decision was preceded by a long and -at times - rather > > heated debate. > > This result was seen in Guadalajara as a harbinger of change in ITU's > > attitude towards today's realities, and a sign of the shrinking of the > > faction that has preferred not to acknowledge them. The deadlock was broken > > late during the last plenary after the Sectetary-General's strong plea for > > more open attitude towards other players. > > Best, > > Yrjö > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Sat Oct 23 13:49:36 2010 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 18:49:36 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for comments In-Reply-To: References: <4CB53EAE.90707@itforchange.net> <0E1918E2-D90A-4B6C-8D86-253343CC5B74@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <516065.70751.qm@web25901.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Great I support this letter. NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul Burundi Youth Training Centre www.bytc.bi Tel : +257 79 981459 ________________________________ De : Izumi AIZU À : governance at lists.cpsr.org Envoyé le : Dim 17 octobre 2010, 2h 00min 02s Objet : [governance] Draft letter to Under-Secretary-General Sha for comments Dear List, Here is draft text for a letter that the Internet Governance Caucus proposes to send objecting to the exclusivity of the upcoming enhanced cooperation consultations. While we have asked ICC and ISOC if they are willing to join us to make it sort of joint statement, we like to first ask our IGC members to discuss about this and, given short time, call for [rough] consensus within a few days if that is feasible. Please be specific to the wording as much as possible. And of course we welcome your constructive suggestions for the handling of this with other stakeholders as well. Thank you, Jeremy and Izumi His Excellency Sha Zukang Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs United Nations 3 United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017 Your Excellency, Thank you for your open letter of 7 October 2010, addressed to civil society and private sector stakeholders, in which you invite them to participate in consultations in New York on 14th December. Quoting resolution 2010/2 of the Economic and Social Council, the letter explains that these are meant as "open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process of enhanced cooperation ... in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet ... through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities." In this context we are concerned that the consultations scheduled for New York are not in fact as open and inclusive as the ECOSOC resolution requires. Specifically, we were surprised that non-governmental stakeholders were invited only to give written contributions, and to nominate a single representative to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all non-governmental stakeholders. In our respectful view, this does not amount to the open and inclusive consultation called for by ECOSOC, but rather is effectively an intergovernmental consultation. This runs counter to the principle established at the World Summit on the Information Society that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations." We acknowledge that the restraints that have been placed upon the participation of private sector and civil society stakeholders in this consultation are said to be as a result of space constraints at the United Nations complex in New York. Might we suggest, then, that due to the importance of securing wide and inclusive participation of all stakeholders in this consultation, the date and venue be changed to the Palais des Nations in Geneva, perhaps following the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum that are already scheduled for 22 November 2010. Thank you for your ongoing support of the multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance, and for considering the important concerns raised above. We look forward to receiving your response in due course. END -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Sat Oct 23 14:12:40 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 23:42:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITU in Guadalajara In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A072EA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A072EA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: *Dear Wolfgang,* * * *I read that one of the resolutions pertinent to ITU's role in WSIS is RESOLUTION 140 (Antalya, 2006) ITUʼs role in implementing the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) [a revision of Antalya, 2006?]* * * *In the context of this resolution "**Several Contributions to PP ʼ10 seek to alter and in some cases expand the role of the ITU, particularly in the field of Internet governance. In addition, one Member State advocated that the ITU should organize a third WSIS to be held in 2015." *[This was an observation at the end of Week 2, but there might not have been changes in contributions to that effect during Week 3.] * * *In an ISOC communication, I read that these are ISOC's views: * * * *"It is also important to remember that the WSIS was not an ITU Conference; the **UN General Assembly authorized it, as we were reminded by the delegation of **Egypt in the Working Group of Plenary. That is an important fact to keep in mind **at PP ʼ10. For example, the ITU has not got the authority to change the **decisions of the WSIS by instructing the IGF on how it should work, or by **advocating a role for the ITU that is not consistent with the Tunis Agenda action **lines.* * * *We believe it is important for the ITU to play a key role in implementing the* *outcomes of WSIS. But in doing so, we also believe it is important to respect and **take advantage of the multistakeholder processes that were proven to be* *valuable in the WSIS -- Internet Society"* * * I recall that you (Wolfgang Kleinwaechter) first raised the though that there should be a review of WSIS just as we have a review of the IGF. The views quoted above clearly indicate that there is a need for clarity on how the WSIS should be organized and for clarity in the role of stakeholders in ORGANIZING WSIS. Sivasubramanian M India. * * On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 1:48 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Thanks Yrjö > > interesting to see how realities (and innovative looking forward > approaches) reach the bastions of yesteryears tradition. This opens the door > for "enhanced cooperation" in a new way and will probably significantly > influence the forthcoming consultations by the UN on this issue. > > Here is another question: What the PP plans to decide with regard to WSOS > 2015 (and the role of the ITU PP 2014) in this process? > > Thanks > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU > Gesendet: Sa 23.10.2010 00:58 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Yrjö Länsipuro > Betreff: Re: [governance] ITU in Guadalajara > > > > Yrjö, > > Thank you so much for sharing this rather important and encouraging > news. I understand many of you have been there for a long time, with > long and tiring negotiations and debates. > > And I hope this will bring more open attitudes of ITU and its members > to the civil society, or mutli and many stakeholders, minority voices > etc. > > In any case, please have a good and resting weekend. > And please say hello to all of our friends who are still there. > > izumi > > > 2010/10/23 Yrjö Länsipuro : > > Dear all, > > Since there were alarming reports on the list some weeks ago about what > > might happen at the ITU Plenipot in Guadalajara (trying to take over the > GAC > > or to merge IGF with WSIS Forum...) I'm happy to report that such and > > similar proposals, that had indeed been made, evaporated in the > negotiation > > process and that the outcome actually might open new avenues for "ITU's > > collaboration and coordination with other relevant organizations". Call > for > > this was included in identical for in all four internet-related > > resolutions, each with a footnote saying that these organizations include > > but are not limited to ICANN, ISOC, the RIR´s, IETF and W3C. This is the > > first time to my knowledge that the name of ICANN appears in a ITU > > resolution, and the decision was preceded by a long and -at times - > rather > > heated debate. > > This result was seen in Guadalajara as a harbinger of change in ITU's > > attitude towards today's realities, and a sign of the shrinking of the > > faction that has preferred not to acknowledge them. The deadlock was > broken > > late during the last plenary after the Sectetary-General's strong plea > for > > more open attitude towards other players. > > Best, > > Yrjö > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Oct 23 15:52:00 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 06:52:00 +1100 Subject: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD Message-ID: Folks, The Nomcom for CSTD nominations and some other tasks has now been formed, and I have taken on the role of the chair for our first task. The other members are Qusai Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, and Jacquiline Morris. Right now - and in a next to impossible timeframe of less than a week from now - we have to select the IGC nominees to CSTD. I will post here any further information as it comes to hand, but our request - informally - is for a slate of about 10 candidates. I will write about an issue here separately to et some input from the list. The list of candidates we have from the recent ballot and questionaire - excluding those who are members of the nomcom and have withdrawn their nominations - is Jeremy Malcolm Tim McGinnis Anupam Agrawal Rafik Dammak Mohamed Zahran Cheryl Langdon-Orr Jamil Goheer Wolfgang Kleinwächter Imran Ahmed Shah AHM Bazlur Rahman William J. Drake Izumi Aizu Jeanette Hofmann Ginger Paque Michael Gurstein Divina Frau-Meigs Baudouin Schombe Fearghas McKay Hakikur Rahman Solomon Gizaw Fouad Bajwa Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare Pascal Bekono Milton L. Mueller Vittorio Bertola Shahzad Ahmad Katitza Rodriguez Julian Casasbuenas G - Hong Xue Hanane Boujemi Jeremy Hunsinger Vivek Misra Marília Maciel Tracy Hackshaw Gurumurthy K Parminder Jeet Singh If you are on this list and no longer wish to be considered, please advise within 24 hours so we can finalise the slate by writing to nomcom at igf-online.net If you would like to be added to this list as a late candidate for consideration, please also write to nomcom at igf-online.net within 24 hours And finally - as not all nomcom members know all the candidates, we invite all nominees to send some brief information about themselves and their suitability to represent IGC - again to nomcom at igf-online.net. We would prefer this within 24 hours - but as long as it is received within 48 hours it will be abe to be considered by the nomcom. Apologies for the great haste - this was always going to be a very difficult deadline to meet and we will do our best in the circumstances. 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Oct 23 16:10:33 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 07:10:33 +1100 Subject: [governance] Guidance sought on CSTD nominations and involvement of technical community Message-ID: As outlined in another email the Nomcom for selecting IGC representatives to the CSTD has now been formed, and needs to complete its work within a week. There is one issue on which we seek urgent guidance from the list and its members and readers. The brief we were given by the co coordinators includes the following - "we have been told informally that we should nominate about ten members in all, at least three of whom must be members of the Internet technical community, because the technical community will not have its own stakeholders on the committee. Likewise, the private sector will be doing the same". This is of course an unusual request and a somewhat uncomfortable one. It is difficult - and I believe impractical - for IGC to make judgements on the suitability of candidates from another stakeholder group, and I am not sure it is in our best interest to do so, despite the request. However, if we do not do so and the result of that is that the technical community is locked out of these talks, that also is not a good outcome. So I am seeking wisdom on how to approach this. Some options would be Write to ISOC and ask them to nominate three representatives which we forward on their behalf Ask readers of this list who are suitable to add themselves to the current list of candidates to be considered by the nomcom and come up with a list based on our nominations and processes Inform CSTD that it is inappropriate for us to nominate technical community reps Or perhaps some combination of the above? As a Nomcom we are interested in guidance on this issue. By all means post on list, but if you would prefer email me privately and I will ensure the other nomcom members get the information. Because this is a difficult and unusual request, and because it involves other stakeholder groups and indeed aspects of the model of enhanced co-operation, we would welcome input as to how the IGC nomcom should best approach this. Ian Peter (on behalf on nomcom) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 23 16:19:06 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 16:19:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Ian, I withdraw my name from the IGC Nominations to CSTD process and at the same time, wish to indicate support for a female nominee from the Latin America and the Caribbean region. Rgds, Tracy On 10/23/10, Ian Peter wrote: > Folks, > > The Nomcom for CSTD nominations and some other tasks has now been formed, > and I have taken on the role of the chair for our first task. The other > members are Qusai Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, and Jacquiline > Morris. > > Right now - and in a next to impossible timeframe of less than a week from > now - we have to select the IGC nominees to CSTD. I will post here any > further information as it comes to hand, but our request - informally - is > for a slate of about 10 candidates. I will write about an issue here > separately to et some input from the list. > > The list of candidates we have from the recent ballot and questionaire - > excluding those who are members of the nomcom and have withdrawn their > nominations - is > > Jeremy Malcolm > Tim McGinnis > Anupam Agrawal > Rafik Dammak > Mohamed Zahran > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > Jamil Goheer > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > Imran Ahmed Shah > AHM Bazlur Rahman > William J. Drake > Izumi Aizu > Jeanette Hofmann > Ginger Paque > Michael Gurstein > Divina Frau-Meigs > Baudouin Schombe > Fearghas McKay > Hakikur Rahman > Solomon Gizaw > Fouad Bajwa > Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare > Pascal Bekono > Milton L. Mueller > Vittorio Bertola > Shahzad Ahmad > Katitza Rodriguez > Julian Casasbuenas G - > Hong Xue > Hanane Boujemi > Jeremy Hunsinger > Vivek Misra > Marília Maciel > Tracy Hackshaw > Gurumurthy K > Parminder Jeet Singh > > > If you are on this list and no longer wish to be considered, please advise > within 24 hours so we can finalise the slate by writing to > nomcom at igf-online.net > > If you would like to be added to this list as a late candidate for > consideration, please also write to nomcom at igf-online.net within 24 hours > > And finally - as not all nomcom members know all the candidates, we invite > all nominees to send some brief information about themselves and their > suitability to represent IGC - again to nomcom at igf-online.net. We would > prefer this within 24 hours - but as long as it is received within 48 hours > it will be abe to be considered by the nomcom. > > Apologies for the great haste - this was always going to be a very difficult > deadline to meet and we will do our best in the circumstances. > > 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 -- 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 tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Sat Oct 23 16:27:02 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 16:27:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Guidance sought on CSTD nominations and involvement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In the spirit of multistakerholderism, I see no problem (and actually support) the IGC reaching out to the Internet Technical Community (ISOC/IETF is an excellent starting point) as well as other Technical groupings from the RIRs, for example. All of this may be moot if, in fact, there are members of the Technical Community who are also members of the IGC and who may wish to identify themselves as such. Although it is an unusual and perhaps difficult task, I think it is best to support the NomCom in their deliberations to emerge with suitably qualified nominees. Best wishes, Tracy On 10/23/10, Ian Peter wrote: > As outlined in another email the Nomcom for selecting IGC representatives to > the CSTD has now been formed, and needs to complete its work within a week. > > There is one issue on which we seek urgent guidance from the list and its > members and readers. > > The brief we were given by the co coordinators includes the following - "we > have been told informally that we should nominate about ten members in all, > at least three of whom must be members of the Internet technical community, > because the technical community will not have its own stakeholders on the > committee. Likewise, the private sector will be doing the same". > > This is of course an unusual request and a somewhat uncomfortable one. It is > difficult - and I believe impractical - for IGC to make judgements on the > suitability of candidates from another stakeholder group, and I am not sure > it is in our best interest to do so, despite the request. However, if we do > not do so and the result of that is that the technical community is locked > out of these talks, that also is not a good outcome. > > So I am seeking wisdom on how to approach this. Some options would be > > Write to ISOC and ask them to nominate three representatives which we > forward on their behalf > > Ask readers of this list who are suitable to add themselves to the current > list of candidates to be considered by the nomcom and come up with a list > based on our nominations and processes > > Inform CSTD that it is inappropriate for us to nominate technical community > reps > > Or perhaps some combination of the above? > > As a Nomcom we are interested in guidance on this issue. By all means post > on list, but if you would prefer email me privately and I will ensure the > other nomcom members get the information. > > Because this is a difficult and unusual request, and because it involves > other stakeholder groups and indeed aspects of the model of enhanced > co-operation, we would welcome input as to how the IGC nomcom should best > approach this. > > Ian Peter (on behalf on nomcom) > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Oct 23 16:54:31 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 16:54:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Guidance sought on CSTD nominations and involvement In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006D13@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I agree with Tracy we (I mean you Peter et al : ) should try to helpful, when possible. Lee ________________________________________ From: Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google [tracyhackshaw at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2010 4:27 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Guidance sought on CSTD nominations and involvement In the spirit of multistakerholderism, I see no problem (and actually support) the IGC reaching out to the Internet Technical Community (ISOC/IETF is an excellent starting point) as well as other Technical groupings from the RIRs, for example. All of this may be moot if, in fact, there are members of the Technical Community who are also members of the IGC and who may wish to identify themselves as such. Although it is an unusual and perhaps difficult task, I think it is best to support the NomCom in their deliberations to emerge with suitably qualified nominees. Best wishes, Tracy On 10/23/10, Ian Peter wrote: > As outlined in another email the Nomcom for selecting IGC representatives to > the CSTD has now been formed, and needs to complete its work within a week. > > There is one issue on which we seek urgent guidance from the list and its > members and readers. > > The brief we were given by the co coordinators includes the following - "we > have been told informally that we should nominate about ten members in all, > at least three of whom must be members of the Internet technical community, > because the technical community will not have its own stakeholders on the > committee. Likewise, the private sector will be doing the same". > > This is of course an unusual request and a somewhat uncomfortable one. It is > difficult - and I believe impractical - for IGC to make judgements on the > suitability of candidates from another stakeholder group, and I am not sure > it is in our best interest to do so, despite the request. However, if we do > not do so and the result of that is that the technical community is locked > out of these talks, that also is not a good outcome. > > So I am seeking wisdom on how to approach this. Some options would be > > Write to ISOC and ask them to nominate three representatives which we > forward on their behalf > > Ask readers of this list who are suitable to add themselves to the current > list of candidates to be considered by the nomcom and come up with a list > based on our nominations and processes > > Inform CSTD that it is inappropriate for us to nominate technical community > reps > > Or perhaps some combination of the above? > > As a Nomcom we are interested in guidance on this issue. By all means post > on list, but if you would prefer email me privately and I will ensure the > other nomcom members get the information. > > Because this is a difficult and unusual request, and because it involves > other stakeholder groups and indeed aspects of the model of enhanced > co-operation, we would welcome input as to how the IGC nomcom should best > approach this. > > Ian Peter (on behalf on nomcom) > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 24 03:28:27 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 03:28:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: Guidance sought on CSTD nominations and involvement of technical community In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D42B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Ian There are many people on this list who could qualify as "technical community" (Avri, McTim, Curran) or as academics who bridge technology and policy such as myself, Lee McKnight, William Drake, Izumi Aizu, Hakikur Rahman. So the best approach is for NomCom to look at these kinds of qualifications as they assess nominees I would oppose this approach: > Write to ISOC and ask them to nominate three representatives which we > forward on their behalf Though notifying ISOC about our needs so they can promote people within IGC who might want to put themselves forward would be good. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 09:30:30 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:30:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: Guidance sought on CSTD nominations and In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D42B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D42B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I have to agree with Milton here. I don't read this necessarily as nominating candidates on behalf of other stakeholder groups. The request, IMHO, is that three of our nominees qualify as being from the "technical community." Although IGC is meant to address public policy issues and to advance somewhat a social agenda, we know it's not exclusive of the technical community and many people among us have more than one profile in relation to IG, including a technical one. If CSTD wanted to have nominees from structures such as ISOC or IETF as stakeholder groups, those structures are even more formally organized than us and I'm sure CSTD would have just sent them a request directly. I don't believe the fact that IGC emerged during WSIS is reason for any UN body to communicate only with us as CS group and not to other potential CS/ technical stakeholders. So my interpretation is the same as Milton's, and this would not mean that we are not reaching out (again there are people among us who are ISOC, IETF or former IETF members, etc.). Mawaki On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Ian > There are many people on this list who could qualify as "technical > community" (Avri, McTim, Curran) or as academics who bridge technology and > policy such as myself, Lee McKnight, William Drake, Izumi Aizu, Hakikur > Rahman. So the best approach is for NomCom to look at these kinds of > qualifications as they assess nominees > > I would oppose this approach: > > > Write to ISOC and ask them to nominate three representatives which we > > forward on their behalf > > Though notifying ISOC about our needs so they can promote people within IGC > who might want to put themselves forward would be good. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Sun Oct 24 10:05:05 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:05:05 +0500 Subject: [governance] RE: Guidance sought on CSTD nominations and In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D42B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton's and Mawaki's views should be worth a consideration. It would be useful for our members that are going to participate in the Open Consultations, MAG Meeting and are forwarding their nominations (as myself) and available if selected to be present in Geneva for the CSTD working group on IGF improvements to state in their nomination profile that they may also be carrying a technical profile. In my case, I am a technical person with both a technical education and professional experience profile of more than a decade. Again, it would also be useful to note that IGC is not the only CS stakeholder and there are other CS stakeholders involved in the process. I wonder if this list is to be forwarded to the CSTD or to the IGF secretariat for black box selection and whether other CS stakeholders are also forwarding their nominations for inclusion into this group of ten names from CS. As regards to the selection of technical community representatives, it is not the purpose of IGC to select nominations for other stakeholder groups unless we have a formal understanding/agreement with the other stakeholder groups to represent them and I can't figure out how we can represent them or should we approach the issue by nominating technical people amongst us. We can go for a quick vote or so but we are now less than a month away from arriving in Geneva? Anyone who is nominated/selected might have to be present in Geneva (I am not aware of any remote participation facilitations at the CSTD working group session) -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > I have to agree with Milton here. I don't read this necessarily as > nominating candidates on behalf of other stakeholder groups. The request, > IMHO, is that three of our nominees qualify as being from the "technical > community." Although IGC is meant to address public policy issues and to > advance somewhat a social agenda, we know it's not exclusive of the > technical community and many people among us have more than one profile in > relation to IG, including a technical one. > > If CSTD wanted to have nominees from structures such as ISOC or IETF as > stakeholder groups, those structures are even more formally organized than > us and I'm sure CSTD would have just sent them a request directly. I don't > believe the fact that IGC emerged during WSIS is reason for any UN body to > communicate only with us as CS group and not to other potential CS/ > technical stakeholders. So my interpretation is the same as Milton's, and > this would not mean that we are not reaching out (again there are people > among us who are ISOC, IETF or former IETF members, etc.). > > Mawaki > > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Ian >> There are many people on this list who could qualify as "technical >> community" (Avri, McTim, Curran) or as academics who bridge technology and >> policy such as myself, Lee McKnight, William Drake, Izumi Aizu, Hakikur >> Rahman. So the best approach is for NomCom to look at these kinds of >> qualifications as they assess nominees >> >> I would oppose this approach: >> >> > Write to ISOC and ask them to nominate three representatives which we >> > forward on their behalf >> >> Though notifying ISOC about our needs so they can promote people within >> IGC who might want to put themselves forward would be good. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 24 10:34:10 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:34:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: Guidance sought on CSTD nominations and In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D42B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message , at 09:30:30 on Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Mawaki Chango writes >If CSTD wanted to have nominees from structures such as ISOC or IETF as >stakeholder groups, those structures are even more formally organized >than us and I'm sure CSTD would have just sent them a request directly Apparently not. The chair of this CSTD Working Group announced in Vilnius that he would only be asking three stakeholder groups: Government, Private Sector and Civil Society. Of course, there is some crossover between these and what is generally understood to be the "Internet Technical Community" (simplifying a little: the people who design and operate the Internet). For example, while I have been a member of this list for perhaps three years, I have also stuck my head round the door while the ICANN NCUC has been meeting, and have clients in both the core ITC (RIPE NCC) and within Civil Society (a charity currently helping mainly female victims of online harassment). I've also attended the main CSTD sessions for the last two years, as well as every IGF prep and main meeting, ever. And live about an hour, by air, from Geneva. But there are some complications regarding putting myself forward in the context of these nominations. -- 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 gadi at anime.org Sun Oct 24 12:16:41 2010 From: gadi at anime.org (Gadi Evron) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:16:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] OT: OECD privacy con in Jerusalem Message-ID: I am certain many here are attending, and I'd be happy to buy you a beer or take you around if you drop me a note. I will not be at the conference itself as I heard about the event too late to register, but as a local I am happy to play host off-hours. Gadi. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 14:43:24 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:43:24 -0200 Subject: [governance] RE: Guidance sought on CSTD nominations and In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D42B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D42B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I tend to agree with Milton, and I believe this approach is compatible to what has been proposed by Tracy. The names can be decided upon by the NomCom, but it would be good to share the information about this request and how IGC is handling it with other organizations, such as ISOC. This avoids miscommunication, increases transparency and increses the chances that more technical people actually come forward. Marília On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 5:28 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Ian > There are many people on this list who could qualify as "technical > community" (Avri, McTim, Curran) or as academics who bridge technology and > policy such as myself, Lee McKnight, William Drake, Izumi Aizu, Hakikur > Rahman. So the best approach is for NomCom to look at these kinds of > qualifications as they assess nominees > > I would oppose this approach: > > > Write to ISOC and ask them to nominate three representatives which we > > forward on their behalf > > Though notifying ISOC about our needs so they can promote people within IGC > who might want to put themselves forward would be good. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Sun Oct 24 17:21:50 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:21:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CC4A36E.10201@eff.org> Dear Ian, Can you please let us know when does the CSTD meeting will take place? If its only a meeting, or many different meetings? How much time the tasks might include? This would be useful to make sure people will assume the responsibilities they need to take for that position. Thank you, Katitza On 10/23/10 9:52 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Folks, > > The Nomcom for CSTD nominations and some other tasks has now been formed, > and I have taken on the role of the chair for our first task. The other > members are Qusai Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, and Jacquiline > Morris. > > Right now - and in a next to impossible timeframe of less than a week from > now - we have to select the IGC nominees to CSTD. I will post here any > further information as it comes to hand, but our request - informally - is > for a slate of about 10 candidates. I will write about an issue here > separately to et some input from the list. > > The list of candidates we have from the recent ballot and questionaire - > excluding those who are members of the nomcom and have withdrawn their > nominations - is > > Jeremy Malcolm > Tim McGinnis > Anupam Agrawal > Rafik Dammak > Mohamed Zahran > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > Jamil Goheer > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > Imran Ahmed Shah > AHM Bazlur Rahman > William J. Drake > Izumi Aizu > Jeanette Hofmann > Ginger Paque > Michael Gurstein > Divina Frau-Meigs > Baudouin Schombe > Fearghas McKay > Hakikur Rahman > Solomon Gizaw > Fouad Bajwa > Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare > Pascal Bekono > Milton L. Mueller > Vittorio Bertola > Shahzad Ahmad > Katitza Rodriguez > Julian Casasbuenas G - > Hong Xue > Hanane Boujemi > Jeremy Hunsinger > Vivek Misra > Marília Maciel > Tracy Hackshaw > Gurumurthy K > Parminder Jeet Singh > > > If you are on this list and no longer wish to be considered, please advise > within 24 hours so we can finalise the slate by writing to > nomcom at igf-online.net > > If you would like to be added to this list as a late candidate for > consideration, please also write to nomcom at igf-online.net within 24 hours > > And finally - as not all nomcom members know all the candidates, we invite > all nominees to send some brief information about themselves and their > suitability to represent IGC - again to nomcom at igf-online.net. We would > prefer this within 24 hours - but as long as it is received within 48 hours > it will be abe to be considered by the nomcom. > > Apologies for the great haste - this was always going to be a very difficult > deadline to meet and we will do our best in the circumstances. > > 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 -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Oct 24 17:27:41 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:27:41 +1100 Subject: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD In-Reply-To: <4CC4A36E.10201@eff.org> Message-ID: Hi Katitza, We don't have a great deal of information and are seeking more, but this attachment might help and gives a basic explanation. Ian Peter > From: Katitza Rodriguez > Organization: EFF > Reply-To: , Katitza Rodriguez > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:21:50 +0200 > To: > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD > > Dear Ian, > > Can you please let us know when does the CSTD meeting will take place? > If its only a meeting, or many different meetings? How much time the > tasks might include? This would be useful to make sure people will > assume the responsibilities they need to take for that position. > > Thank you, Katitza > > > > On 10/23/10 9:52 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Folks, >> >> The Nomcom for CSTD nominations and some other tasks has now been formed, >> and I have taken on the role of the chair for our first task. The other >> members are Qusai Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, and Jacquiline >> Morris. >> >> Right now - and in a next to impossible timeframe of less than a week from >> now - we have to select the IGC nominees to CSTD. I will post here any >> further information as it comes to hand, but our request - informally - is >> for a slate of about 10 candidates. I will write about an issue here >> separately to et some input from the list. >> >> The list of candidates we have from the recent ballot and questionaire - >> excluding those who are members of the nomcom and have withdrawn their >> nominations - is >> >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Tim McGinnis >> Anupam Agrawal >> Rafik Dammak >> Mohamed Zahran >> Cheryl Langdon-Orr >> Jamil Goheer >> Wolfgang Kleinwächter >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> AHM Bazlur Rahman >> William J. Drake >> Izumi Aizu >> Jeanette Hofmann >> Ginger Paque >> Michael Gurstein >> Divina Frau-Meigs >> Baudouin Schombe >> Fearghas McKay >> Hakikur Rahman >> Solomon Gizaw >> Fouad Bajwa >> Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare >> Pascal Bekono >> Milton L. Mueller >> Vittorio Bertola >> Shahzad Ahmad >> Katitza Rodriguez >> Julian Casasbuenas G - >> Hong Xue >> Hanane Boujemi >> Jeremy Hunsinger >> Vivek Misra >> Marília Maciel >> Tracy Hackshaw >> Gurumurthy K >> Parminder Jeet Singh >> >> >> If you are on this list and no longer wish to be considered, please advise >> within 24 hours so we can finalise the slate by writing to >> nomcom at igf-online.net >> >> If you would like to be added to this list as a late candidate for >> consideration, please also write to nomcom at igf-online.net within 24 hours >> >> And finally - as not all nomcom members know all the candidates, we invite >> all nominees to send some brief information about themselves and their >> suitability to represent IGC - again to nomcom at igf-online.net. We would >> prefer this within 24 hours - but as long as it is received within 48 hours >> it will be abe to be considered by the nomcom. >> >> Apologies for the great haste - this was always going to be a very difficult >> deadline to meet and we will do our best in the circumstances. >> >> 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 > > > -- > Katitza Rodriguez > International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > katitza at eff.org > katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of > speech since 1990 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cstd2010d02_en.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 22959 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 18:36:33 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 03:36:33 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD In-Reply-To: References: <4CC4A36E.10201@eff.org> Message-ID: Hello Ian, Thank you for sharing the attached document. It can be seen from the following text from the document that the CSTD WG will meet face-2-face back to back with the MAG meeting. This does create the need of IGC selected members to be actually present and if this list is finalized soon and supposedly any of the MAG members that are also IGC members are selected by the nominating committee, they can plan and book their stay well in advance so this can be managed conveniently within time? b) Face-to-face consultations and first meeting of the Working Group A face-to-face open and inclusive consultation meeting will be organized by the Chair of the Working Group on IGF in Geneva on 24 November 2010, back –to-back with the IGF open consultations and MAG meeting, scheduled to be organized by the IGF Secretariat from 22 to 23 November 2010. The outcome of the open consultations will be used as input to the first CSTD Working Group meeting, which will take place in conjunction with the CSTD inter-sessional panel meeting in December 2010. Do we have a schedule for the Nominating Committee to conduct the process for selection of its members to the CSTD WG yet? -- Best Fouad On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:27 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Katitza, > > We don't have a great deal of information and are seeking more, but this > attachment might help and gives a basic explanation. > > Ian Peter > > >> From: Katitza Rodriguez >> Organization: EFF >> Reply-To: , Katitza Rodriguez >> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:21:50 +0200 >> To: >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD >> >> Dear Ian, >> >> Can you please let us know when does the CSTD meeting will take place? >> If its only a meeting, or many different meetings? How much time the >> tasks might include? This would be useful to make sure people will >> assume the responsibilities they need to take for that position. >> >> Thank you, 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 katitza at eff.org Sun Oct 24 18:40:22 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:40:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD In-Reply-To: References: <4CC4A36E.10201@eff.org> Message-ID: <4CC4B5D6.4010007@eff.org> Dear Ian, I have reviewed the document that you have sent to the list, and I am pretty much interested to keep my name on the list of nominees. I pretty much believe that this working group will require a good amount of time, and might require pretty much our attention. I am willing to accommodate my agenda to make it time for this issue. I will confirm my participation in the IGC too, since I am interested to participate in, and allocate my time to do that job. My bio is here: https://www.eff.org/about/staff/katitza-rodriguez Many thanks, Katitza On 10/25/10 12:36 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Hello Ian, > > Thank you for sharing the attached document. It can be seen from the > following text from the document that the CSTD WG will meet > face-2-face back to back with the MAG meeting. This does create the > need of IGC selected members to be actually present and if this list > is finalized soon and supposedly any of the MAG members that are also > IGC members are selected by the nominating committee, they can plan > and book their stay well in advance so this can be managed > conveniently within time? > > b) Face-to-face consultations and first meeting of the Working Group > A face-to-face open and inclusive consultation meeting will be > organized by the Chair of the Working Group on IGF in Geneva on 24 > November 2010, back –to-back with the IGF open consultations and MAG > meeting, scheduled to be organized by the IGF Secretariat from 22 to > 23 November 2010. The outcome of the open consultations will be used > as input to the first CSTD Working Group meeting, which will take > place in conjunction with the CSTD inter-sessional panel meeting in > December 2010. > > Do we have a schedule for the Nominating Committee to conduct the > process for selection of its members to the CSTD WG yet? > > -- Best > Fouad > > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:27 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Hi Katitza, >> >> We don't have a great deal of information and are seeking more, but this >> attachment might help and gives a basic explanation. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >>> From: Katitza Rodriguez >>> Organization: EFF >>> Reply-To:, Katitza Rodriguez >>> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:21:50 +0200 >>> To: >>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD >>> >>> Dear Ian, >>> >>> Can you please let us know when does the CSTD meeting will take place? >>> If its only a meeting, or many different meetings? How much time the >>> tasks might include? This would be useful to make sure people will >>> assume the responsibilities they need to take for that position. >>> >>> Thank you, Katitza >>> >>> -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Oct 24 18:42:03 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:42:03 +1100 Subject: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fouad, our current timetable is the end of this week to submit names - but we are currently seeing whether a few days grace is available. Then of course CSTD has to choose from our slate - I have no idea what their timing might be. Clearly our timetable is very tight and not likely to ease up....and yes it would appear that those selected by CSTD might get quite short notice. Ian Peter > From: Fouad Bajwa > Reply-To: , Fouad Bajwa > Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 03:36:33 +0500 > To: , Ian Peter > Cc: Katitza Rodriguez > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD > > Hello Ian, > > Thank you for sharing the attached document. It can be seen from the > following text from the document that the CSTD WG will meet > face-2-face back to back with the MAG meeting. This does create the > need of IGC selected members to be actually present and if this list > is finalized soon and supposedly any of the MAG members that are also > IGC members are selected by the nominating committee, they can plan > and book their stay well in advance so this can be managed > conveniently within time? > > b) Face-to-face consultations and first meeting of the Working Group > A face-to-face open and inclusive consultation meeting will be > organized by the Chair of the Working Group on IGF in Geneva on 24 > November 2010, back ­to-back with the IGF open consultations and MAG > meeting, scheduled to be organized by the IGF Secretariat from 22 to > 23 November 2010. The outcome of the open consultations will be used > as input to the first CSTD Working Group meeting, which will take > place in conjunction with the CSTD inter-sessional panel meeting in > December 2010. > > Do we have a schedule for the Nominating Committee to conduct the > process for selection of its members to the CSTD WG yet? > > -- Best > Fouad > > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:27 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Hi Katitza, >> >> We don't have a great deal of information and are seeking more, but this >> attachment might help and gives a basic explanation. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >>> From: Katitza Rodriguez >>> Organization: EFF >>> Reply-To: , Katitza Rodriguez >>> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:21:50 +0200 >>> To: >>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD >>> >>> Dear Ian, >>> >>> Can you please let us know when does the CSTD meeting will take place? >>> If its only a meeting, or many different meetings? How much time the >>> tasks might include? This would be useful to make sure people will >>> assume the responsibilities they need to take for that position. >>> >>> Thank you, 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 25 01:06:51 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:06:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] RE: Guidance sought on CSTD nominations and In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D42B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Ian, some of our recommendations in the past have included people from the technical community, shouldn't be a problem again. How about writing to Raul and Paul, both have contributed to the caucus over the years. And yes, include ISOC. If the informal instructions to submit 3 names, then submit them. And Milton's suggestion: At 3:28 AM -0400 10/24/10, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >Though notifying ISOC about our needs so they can promote people >within IGC who might want to put themselves forward would be good. > Is fine - ask ISOC to look over the list, see if there people they'd be willing to support. Adam >In message >, at >09:30:30 on Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Mawaki Chango >writes >>If CSTD wanted to have nominees from structures such as ISOC or >>IETF as stakeholder groups, those structures are even more formally >>organized than us and I'm sure CSTD would have just sent them a >>request directly > >Apparently not. The chair of this CSTD Working Group announced in >Vilnius that he would only be asking three stakeholder groups: >Government, Private Sector and Civil Society. > >Of course, there is some crossover between these and what is >generally understood to be the "Internet Technical Community" >(simplifying a little: the people who design and operate the >Internet). > >For example, while I have been a member of this list for perhaps >three years, I have also stuck my head round the door while the >ICANN NCUC has been meeting, and have clients in both the core ITC >(RIPE NCC) and within Civil Society (a charity currently helping >mainly female victims of online harassment). > >I've also attended the main CSTD sessions for the last two years, as >well as every IGF prep and main meeting, ever. And live about an >hour, by air, from Geneva. But there are some complications >regarding putting myself forward in the context of these nominations. >-- >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 jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Oct 25 02:15:11 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:15:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CC5206F.6000409@wzb.eu> Hello Ian, hello all, I'd like to withdraw my name as well. It seems we have more than enough candidates. jeanette On 23.10.2010 22:19, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > Hello Ian, > > I withdraw my name from the IGC Nominations to CSTD process and at the > same time, wish to indicate support for a female nominee from the > Latin America and the Caribbean region. > > Rgds, > > Tracy > > On 10/23/10, Ian Peter wrote: >> Folks, >> >> The Nomcom for CSTD nominations and some other tasks has now been formed, >> and I have taken on the role of the chair for our first task. The other >> members are Qusai Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, and Jacquiline >> Morris. >> >> Right now - and in a next to impossible timeframe of less than a week from >> now - we have to select the IGC nominees to CSTD. I will post here any >> further information as it comes to hand, but our request - informally - is >> for a slate of about 10 candidates. I will write about an issue here >> separately to et some input from the list. >> >> The list of candidates we have from the recent ballot and questionaire - >> excluding those who are members of the nomcom and have withdrawn their >> nominations - is >> >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Tim McGinnis >> Anupam Agrawal >> Rafik Dammak >> Mohamed Zahran >> Cheryl Langdon-Orr >> Jamil Goheer >> Wolfgang Kleinwächter >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> AHM Bazlur Rahman >> William J. Drake >> Izumi Aizu >> Jeanette Hofmann >> Ginger Paque >> Michael Gurstein >> Divina Frau-Meigs >> Baudouin Schombe >> Fearghas McKay >> Hakikur Rahman >> Solomon Gizaw >> Fouad Bajwa >> Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare >> Pascal Bekono >> Milton L. Mueller >> Vittorio Bertola >> Shahzad Ahmad >> Katitza Rodriguez >> Julian Casasbuenas G - >> Hong Xue >> Hanane Boujemi >> Jeremy Hunsinger >> Vivek Misra >> Marília Maciel >> Tracy Hackshaw >> Gurumurthy K >> Parminder Jeet Singh >> >> >> If you are on this list and no longer wish to be considered, please advise >> within 24 hours so we can finalise the slate by writing to >> nomcom at igf-online.net >> >> If you would like to be added to this list as a late candidate for >> consideration, please also write to nomcom at igf-online.net within 24 hours >> >> And finally - as not all nomcom members know all the candidates, we invite >> all nominees to send some brief information about themselves and their >> suitability to represent IGC - again to nomcom at igf-online.net. We would >> prefer this within 24 hours - but as long as it is received within 48 hours >> it will be abe to be considered by the nomcom. >> >> Apologies for the great haste - this was always going to be a very difficult >> deadline to meet and we will do our best in the circumstances. >> >> 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Mon Oct 25 03:28:13 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:28:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: Guidance sought on CSTD nominations and In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D42B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4CC5318D.20608@apc.org> I think the approach outlined by Marilia and Milton make sense. What do we know about the process of convening the CSTD working group? Regards Anriette On 24/10/10 20:43, Marilia Maciel wrote: > I tend to agree with Milton, and I believe this approach is compatible > to what has been proposed by Tracy. > The names can be decided upon by the NomCom, but it would be good to > share the information about this request and how IGC is handling it > with other organizations, such as ISOC. This avoids miscommunication, > increases transparency and increses the chances that more technical > people actually come forward. > > Marília > > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 5:28 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > > Ian > There are many people on this list who could qualify as "technical > community" (Avri, McTim, Curran) or as academics who bridge > technology and policy such as myself, Lee McKnight, William Drake, > Izumi Aizu, Hakikur Rahman. So the best approach is for NomCom to > look at these kinds of qualifications as they assess nominees > > I would oppose this approach: > > > Write to ISOC and ask them to nominate three representatives > which we > > forward on their behalf > > Though notifying ISOC about our needs so they can promote people > within IGC who might want to put themselves forward would be good. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director association for progressive communications www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fm-lists at st-kilda.org Mon Oct 25 03:39:57 2010 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:39:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: Guidance sought on CSTD nominations and In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D42B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3A118923-8610-4A08-97F5-B233D1C8E465@st-kilda.org> On 25 Oct 2010, at 06:06, Adam Peake wrote: > > Is fine - ask ISOC to look over the list, see if there people they'd be willing to support. ISOC is not the only overviewing organisation in the Internet Technical community - if we are to go down that route then the RIRs should be consulted, which even then misses out on a large number of operator and developer members of the community. In short a rats nest of people to consult and in the available time not possible and in my opinion not something we should be doing within this community. Within the RIR community we do Bottom Up Policy not ask the Professional Secretariat who is on the "approved list" that matches their agenda. 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 b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Oct 25 04:01:29 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:01:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: Guidance sought on CSTD nominations and In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D42B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hello everyone, just to add whatever the mode of selection, we also need it to be more geographically representative. Since 1998 I am in the process, it is with great satisfaction that I note the positive evolution of our world Caucus IGC like that of African civil society to information society (ACSIS) that has a new team from Sharm el Sheik. But, in my humble opinion, it is also drawn to the actors who have stayed constant and actively present in all these processes can also share all this information at their local network. Also note that since 2003, profiles were also evolved and I am convinced that civil society, in particular, NGOs have acquired a wealth of experience on both the technical design and implementation of ICT policies . SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN 2010/10/24 Mawaki Chango > I have to agree with Milton here. I don't read this necessarily as > nominating candidates on behalf of other stakeholder groups. The request, > IMHO, is that three of our nominees qualify as being from the "technical > community." Although IGC is meant to address public policy issues and to > advance somewhat a social agenda, we know it's not exclusive of the > technical community and many people among us have more than one profile in > relation to IG, including a technical one. > > If CSTD wanted to have nominees from structures such as ISOC or IETF as > stakeholder groups, those structures are even more formally organized than > us and I'm sure CSTD would have just sent them a request directly. I don't > believe the fact that IGC emerged during WSIS is reason for any UN body to > communicate only with us as CS group and not to other potential CS/ > technical stakeholders. So my interpretation is the same as Milton's, and > this would not mean that we are not reaching out (again there are people > among us who are ISOC, IETF or former IETF members, etc.). > > Mawaki > > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Ian >> There are many people on this list who could qualify as "technical >> community" (Avri, McTim, Curran) or as academics who bridge technology and >> policy such as myself, Lee McKnight, William Drake, Izumi Aizu, Hakikur >> Rahman. So the best approach is for NomCom to look at these kinds of >> qualifications as they assess nominees >> >> I would oppose this approach: >> >> > Write to ISOC and ask them to nominate three representatives which we >> > forward on their behalf >> >> Though notifying ISOC about our needs so they can promote people within >> IGC who might want to put themselves forward would be good. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Mon Oct 25 04:35:48 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:35:48 +0800 Subject: [governance] Discussion points for IGC submission on Enhanced Cooperation Message-ID: <4625E7E0-CE53-4E1B-8846-167550BCCBEE@ciroap.org> Our IGC, ICC and ISOC letter objecting to the limited scope for non-governmental participation in the 14 December Enhanced Cooperation consultations will be sent today, and a similar letter has independently been written by ICANN. So, that matter is in hand. Next, we need to sort out what we need to say for that consultation (whether or not it is opened up to more participation in person). In a nutshell, enhanced cooperation (EC) was put forward in Tunis as a middle ground between the US demands to maintain a private-sector led Internet, and the insistence of most other governments that public policy development remained their sovereign right and responsibility. The compromise was that there would be no major regime change in Internet governance, but that governments should from now on take a stronger role in development of the underlying public policy principles, subject to consultation with all other stakeholders in their respective roles. Here are some of the most obvious issues that our statement should address: * Is EC a totally decentralised process which each organisation undertakes independently according to its own criteria? This has been the UNSG's approach (in development of the 2009 report at http://mini.me.my/i). However, ECOSOC (via the CSTD) has re-opened this question (resolution 2010/2). * Alternatively, does EC require a new institutional framework, however loose, for coordinating the cooperation of the stakeholders? * If so, where should this be located? The ITU? (Well, obviously we will answer no - but we must address the point.) An expanded IGF MAG? An expanded GAC? An existing UN intergovernmental body? A brand new multi-stakeholder body? -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Oct 25 05:43:24 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:43:24 +0500 Subject: [governance] ACTA goes beyond present EU laws In-Reply-To: <201010251104.32906.ante@ffii.org> References: <201010251104.32906.ante@ffii.org> Message-ID: The following news about ACTA from FFII would be of interest to EU members: [ ACTA / Economy / Innovation ] ===================================================================== ACTA goes beyond present EU laws ===================================================================== Brussels, 25 October 2010 -- The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is not in line with present EU laws, according to a Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) analysis. Previously, the European Commission has often stated that ACTA would remain fully in line with existing EU legislation. Health groups have pointed out that ACTA will hamper access to essential medicine in developing countries. FFII's analysis focusses on the impact ACTA will have on European SMEs in the ICT field, and on diffusion of green technology, needed to fight climate change. The FFII concludes that patents have to be excluded from ACTA's civil enforcement section. FFII analyst Ante Wessels: "With ACTA, holders of huge patent portfolios could decide to eliminate competition from start-ups, small and medium sized enterprises and open source projects, on their own, or by using a proxy, a patent troll. This is bad for European small and medium sized enterprises, which provide for most of Europe's employment." The FFII criticises that to date no independent impact assessments have been made of the effects ACTA will have on ICT, access to medicine and diffusion of green technology. Ante Wessels: "Astonishingly, our analysis of the effects ACTA will have on diffusion of green technology is the first ever made, as far as we can see. We urge the European Union to order independent impact assessments. These issues are much too important to be neglected." In a separate document, the FFII analyses ACTA's criminal measures. According to the FFII, ACTA criminalises newspapers revealing a document, office workers forwarding a file and possibly downloaders; whistle blowers and weblog authors revealing documents in the public interest and remixers and others sharing a file if there is an advantage. Even if that advantage is only indirect, an element which may be fulfilled by others. ACTA’s criminal measures go beyond the European Parliament 2007 position on the proposed Directive on criminal measures and fail to meet the EU principle of proportionality. ===================================================================== Comparing ACTA and EU legislation ===================================================================== Damages based on suggested retail price (ACTA art 2.2 versus IPRED art 13). Suggested retail prices for patent infringements are beyond any proportion. For instance, software may contain hundreds of patents, from multiple rights holders. The "invention" - if there is any - is only a tiny aspect of the product in such cases. Still, the first rights holder going to court can get damages on suggested retail price, the second and third too, etc. Injunctions against a third party are more limited in the present EU legislation than under ACTA; the present EU legislation also has broader exceptions (ACTA art 2.X versus IPRED art 11 and 12). Also, regarding destruction of infringing goods and production facilities, the present EU legislation has more checks and balances than ACTA (ACTA art 2.3 versus IPRED art 10). ACTA sets a rule, and only exceptional circumstances may prevent destruction. These are just some examples from the civil enforcement section, further scrutiny is needed. But even if inconsistencies between ACTA and EU legislation are solved, ACTA will dramatically limit much needed police space. There are no EU criminal measures against IP infringements. Others report issues with privacy and the Internet measures. See: http://action.ffii.org/acta/ACTA-IPRED ===================================================================== Background information ===================================================================== Behind closed doors, the European Union, United States, Japan and other trade partners are negotiating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. ACTA will contain new international norms for the enforcement of copyrights, trade mark rights and other exclusive rights. ===================================================================== Links ===================================================================== FFII ACTA analysis on ICT and climate change: http://people.ffii.org/~ante/acta/ACTA-FFII-ICT-Climate.pdf FFII ACTA analysis on criminal measures: http://people.ffii.org/~ante/acta/ACTA-FFII-Criminal-Measures.pdf ACTA goes beyond present EU legislation - ACTA and EU legislation compared http://action.ffii.org/acta/ACTA-IPRED General FFII ACTA analysis: http://action.ffii.org/acta/Analysis Permanent link to this press release: http://press.ffii.org/Press%20releases/ACTA%20goes%20beyond%20present%20EU%20laws FFII press releases: http://press.ffii.org/Press%20releases ===================================================================== Contact ===================================================================== FFII Office Berlin  Malmöer  Str. 6  D-10439 Berlin  Fon:  +49-30-41722597  Fax Service: +49-721-509663769  Email:  office (at) ffii.org  http://www.ffii.org/ Ante Wessels  ante at ffii.org  +31 6 100 99 063 ===================================================================== About FFII ===================================================================== The FFII is a not-for-profit association registered in twenty European countries, dedicated to the development of information goods for the public benefit, based on copyright, free competition, open standards. More than 1000 members, 3,500 companies and 100,000 supporters have entrusted the FFII to act as their voice in public policy questions concerning exclusion rights (intellectual property) in data processing. -- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Oct 25 05:54:19 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:54:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As the working group's to study the IGF and improvements, suggest it's best not to recommend current MAG members and advisors in our nominations. Hardly impartial. Not sure about past members, also probably not. Would be sensible to recommend people with a solid record of involvement in the IGF (organized/led workshops, main sessions, remote access and particularly national and regional IGFs). Adam >Fouad, our current timetable is the end of this week to submit names - but >we are currently seeing whether a few days grace is available. > >Then of course CSTD has to choose from our slate - I have no idea what their >timing might be. > >Clearly our timetable is very tight and not likely to ease up....and yes it >would appear that those selected by CSTD might get quite short notice. > >Ian Peter > > > > >> From: Fouad Bajwa >> Reply-To: , Fouad Bajwa >> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 03:36:33 +0500 >> To: , Ian Peter >> Cc: Katitza Rodriguez >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD >> >> Hello Ian, >> >> Thank you for sharing the attached document. It can be seen from the >> following text from the document that the CSTD WG will meet >> face-2-face back to back with the MAG meeting. This does create the >> need of IGC selected members to be actually present and if this list >> is finalized soon and supposedly any of the MAG members that are also >> IGC members are selected by the nominating committee, they can plan >> and book their stay well in advance so this can be managed >> conveniently within time? >> >> b) Face-to-face consultations and first meeting of the Working Group >> A face-to-face open and inclusive consultation meeting will be >> organized by the Chair of the Working Group on IGF in Geneva on 24 >> November 2010, back ­to-back with the IGF open consultations and MAG >> meeting, scheduled to be organized by the IGF Secretariat from 22 to >> 23 November 2010. The outcome of the open consultations will be used >> as input to the first CSTD Working Group meeting, which will take >> place in conjunction with the CSTD inter-sessional panel meeting in >> December 2010. >> >> Do we have a schedule for the Nominating Committee to conduct the >> process for selection of its members to the CSTD WG yet? >> >> -- Best >> Fouad >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:27 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> Hi Katitza, >>> >>> We don't have a great deal of information and are seeking more, but this >>> attachment might help and gives a basic explanation. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>>> From: Katitza Rodriguez >>>> Organization: EFF >>>> Reply-To: , Katitza Rodriguez >>>> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:21:50 +0200 >>>> To: >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD >>>> >>>> Dear Ian, >>>> >>>> Can you please let us know when does the CSTD meeting will take place? >>>> If its only a meeting, or many different meetings? How much time the >>>> tasks might include? This would be useful to make sure people will >>>> assume the responsibilities they need to take for that position. >>>> >>>> Thank you, 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 > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Mon Oct 25 05:56:49 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:56:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CC55461.2040701@eff.org> Hi Adam, You might be right. I haven't think on that. It make sense. my two cents, Katitza On 10/25/10 11:54 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > As the working group's to study the IGF and improvements, suggest it's > best not to recommend current MAG members and advisors in our > nominations. Hardly impartial. Not sure about past members, also > probably not. > > Would be sensible to recommend people with a solid record of > involvement in the IGF (organized/led workshops, main sessions, remote > access and particularly national and regional IGFs). > > Adam > > > >> Fouad, our current timetable is the end of this week to submit names >> - but >> we are currently seeing whether a few days grace is available. >> >> Then of course CSTD has to choose from our slate - I have no idea >> what their >> timing might be. >> >> Clearly our timetable is very tight and not likely to ease up....and >> yes it >> would appear that those selected by CSTD might get quite short notice. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >>> From: Fouad Bajwa >>> Reply-To: , Fouad Bajwa >>> >>> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 03:36:33 +0500 >>> To: , Ian Peter >>> Cc: Katitza Rodriguez >>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD >>> >>> Hello Ian, >>> >>> Thank you for sharing the attached document. It can be seen from the >>> following text from the document that the CSTD WG will meet >>> face-2-face back to back with the MAG meeting. This does create the >>> need of IGC selected members to be actually present and if this list >>> is finalized soon and supposedly any of the MAG members that are also >>> IGC members are selected by the nominating committee, they can plan >>> and book their stay well in advance so this can be managed >>> conveniently within time? >>> >>> b) Face-to-face consultations and first meeting of the Working Group >>> A face-to-face open and inclusive consultation meeting will be >>> organized by the Chair of the Working Group on IGF in Geneva on 24 >>> November 2010, back ­to-back with the IGF open consultations and MAG >>> meeting, scheduled to be organized by the IGF Secretariat from 22 to >>> 23 November 2010. The outcome of the open consultations will be used >>> as input to the first CSTD Working Group meeting, which will take >>> place in conjunction with the CSTD inter-sessional panel meeting in >>> December 2010. >>> >>> Do we have a schedule for the Nominating Committee to conduct the >>> process for selection of its members to the CSTD WG yet? >>> >>> -- Best >>> Fouad >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:27 AM, Ian Peter >>> wrote: >>>> Hi Katitza, >>>> >>>> We don't have a great deal of information and are seeking more, >>>> but this >>>> attachment might help and gives a basic explanation. >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> >>>>> From: Katitza Rodriguez >>>>> Organization: EFF >>>>> Reply-To: , Katitza Rodriguez >>>>> >>>>> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:21:50 +0200 >>>>> To: >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD >>>>> >>>>> Dear Ian, >>>>> >>>>> Can you please let us know when does the CSTD meeting will take >>>>> place? >>>>> If its only a meeting, or many different meetings? How much time the >>>>> tasks might include? This would be useful to make sure people will >>>>> assume the responsibilities they need to take for that position. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, 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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Mon Oct 25 06:19:34 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:19:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Discussion points for IGC submission on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <4625E7E0-CE53-4E1B-8846-167550BCCBEE@ciroap.org> References: <4625E7E0-CE53-4E1B-8846-167550BCCBEE@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi Jeremy, On Oct 25, 2010, at 10:35 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Our IGC, ICC and ISOC letter objecting to the limited scope for non-governmental participation in the 14 December Enhanced Cooperation consultations will be sent today, and a similar letter has independently been written by ICANN. So, that matter is in hand. > > Next, we need to sort out what we need to say for that consultation (whether or not it is opened up to more participation in person). > > In a nutshell, enhanced cooperation (EC) was put forward in Tunis as a middle ground between the US demands to maintain a private-sector led Internet, and the insistence of most other governments that public policy development remained their sovereign right and responsibility. > > The compromise was that there would be no major regime change in Internet governance, but that governments should from now on take a stronger role in development of the underlying public policy principles, subject to consultation with all other stakeholders in their respective roles. Well, as you know, that's just one reading of EC. As many previous discussions here have indicated, others of us read the TA and recall the debates over its drafting differently. Again, "enhanced cooperation to enable governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities" doesn't necessarily mean a "stronger" government role, "involve all stakeholders" doesn't necessarily mean just being consulted with by governments (which wouldn't map with the actually existing governance of CIR), and so on. Don't mean to reopen a can of worms, just think we should not commence from a contested starting point…we don't have to agree on one or another interpretation to proceed, a neutral formulation is possible. > > Here are some of the most obvious issues that our statement should address: > > * Is EC a totally decentralised process which each organisation undertakes independently according to its own criteria? This has been the UNSG's approach (in development of the 2009 report at http://mini.me.my/i). However, ECOSOC (via the CSTD) has re-opened this question (resolution 2010/2). > > * Alternatively, does EC require a new institutional framework, however loose, for coordinating the cooperation of the stakeholders? Interesting question. From a CS standpoint, is the main concern a lack of inter-institutional coordination per se? There's pretty elaborate coordination now in key parts of the institutional architecture (e.g. N&N) and other pieces where it's looser, which may or may not be a bad thing, depending (would we want tighter coordination as envisioned in the ITU "cybersecurity agenda"?). Experience to date is that it can be rather hard to force organizations to coordinate more. But by aggregating, assessing, sharing info and good/bad practices to make clear to all any gaps/synergies/conflicts etc you may be able to alter incentives and encourage movement where it's really needed. That's part of what we had in mind in the Geneva 12/03 CS declaration's call for a "multistakeholder observatory committee to: (1) map and track the most pressing current developments in ICT global governance decision-making; (2) assess and solicit stakeholder input on the conformity of such decision-making with the stated objectives of the WSIS agenda; and (3) report to all stakeholders in the WSIS process on a periodic basis;" some of us have written about this approach elsewhere as well. A lighter, more flexible approach than expecting some sort of fixed meta-framework... > > * If so, where should this be located? The ITU? (Well, obviously we will answer no - but we must address the point.) An expanded IGF MAG? An expanded GAC? An existing UN intergovernmental body? A brand new multi-stakeholder body? I'd argue for a MS observatory process convened under the auspices of the IGF, consistent with all the relevant mandate elements. Cheers, BIll *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Mon Oct 25 06:27:39 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:27:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC & IGF In-Reply-To: <982CDE0C-6142-48D4-B1AF-9FEBCF539AD4@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4CBC9C42.1080801@apc.org> <4CBD427D.3070809@itforchange.net> <41784D1C-ED35-4DC4-8256-8CBF67BE520D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4CBD6936.9060202@itforchange.net> <982CDE0C-6142-48D4-B1AF-9FEBCF539AD4@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Hi On Oct 21, 2010, at 1:53 PM, William Drake wrote: > > Relatedly, the ICC and ISOC with the support of France will hold an information session today in New York October to brief governments' UN mission representatives. No webcast alas, or mention of CS involvement. The background note for the meeting http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/ICC_ISOC_IGF_briefing_note_19Oct10.pdf directly addresses the point we've been cautiously dancing around and endorses an IGF "Led by an independent secretariat based in Geneva where the Internet policy networks and the history of the WSIS lie: it is important for stakeholders to feel they can trust the secretariat to be unbiased and not unduly influenced by any one interest." > > Now that they've put the issue on the table, wouldn't it make sense for IGC to say something similar? With the GA discussion approaching etc, shouldn't the IGC express support for the one part of the UN that's actively promoted its engagement in IG discussions? This seems more immediately pressing to me than trying to visualize a whole new global institutional topography for EC, which one would expect to require a lot of time and dialogue... 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 vanda at uol.com.br Mon Oct 25 09:21:48 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:21:48 -0400 Subject: RES: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01dc01cb7447$9d333530$d7999f90$@uol.com.br> Agree with you Adam, merit is all that should count for nominate anyone. best Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464 -----Mensagem original----- De: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Enviada em: segunda-feira, 25 de outubro de 2010 05:54 Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org Assunto: Re: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD As the working group's to study the IGF and improvements, suggest it's best not to recommend current MAG members and advisors in our nominations. Hardly impartial. Not sure about past members, also probably not. Would be sensible to recommend people with a solid record of involvement in the IGF (organized/led workshops, main sessions, remote access and particularly national and regional IGFs). Adam >Fouad, our current timetable is the end of this week to submit names - >but we are currently seeing whether a few days grace is available. > >Then of course CSTD has to choose from our slate - I have no idea what >their timing might be. > >Clearly our timetable is very tight and not likely to ease up....and >yes it would appear that those selected by CSTD might get quite short notice. > >Ian Peter > > > > >> From: Fouad Bajwa >> Reply-To: , Fouad Bajwa >> >> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 03:36:33 +0500 >> To: , Ian Peter >> Cc: Katitza Rodriguez >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD >> >> Hello Ian, >> >> Thank you for sharing the attached document. It can be seen from the >> following text from the document that the CSTD WG will meet >> face-2-face back to back with the MAG meeting. This does create the >> need of IGC selected members to be actually present and if this list >> is finalized soon and supposedly any of the MAG members that are also >> IGC members are selected by the nominating committee, they can plan >> and book their stay well in advance so this can be managed >> conveniently within time? >> >> b) Face-to-face consultations and first meeting of the Working >> Group A face-to-face open and inclusive consultation meeting will be >> organized by the Chair of the Working Group on IGF in Geneva on 24 >> November 2010, back ­to-back with the IGF open consultations and MAG >> meeting, scheduled to be organized by the IGF Secretariat from 22 to >> 23 November 2010. The outcome of the open consultations will be used >> as input to the first CSTD Working Group meeting, which will take >> place in conjunction with the CSTD inter-sessional panel meeting in >> December 2010. >> >> Do we have a schedule for the Nominating Committee to conduct the >> process for selection of its members to the CSTD WG yet? >> >> -- Best >> Fouad >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:27 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> Hi Katitza, >>> >>> We don't have a great deal of information and are seeking more, but >>> this attachment might help and gives a basic explanation. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>>> From: Katitza Rodriguez >>>> Organization: EFF >>>> Reply-To: , Katitza Rodriguez >>>> >>>> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:21:50 +0200 >>>> To: >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD >>>> >>>> Dear Ian, >>>> >>>> Can you please let us know when does the CSTD meeting will take place? >>>> If its only a meeting, or many different meetings? How much time >>>> the tasks might include? This would be useful to make sure people >>>> will assume the responsibilities they need to take for that position. >>>> >>>> Thank you, 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 > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 25 10:41:32 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 19:41:32 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Do you think a MAG member wouldn't be carrying what you mentioned? MAG members have also be selected from within IGC? I can't speak for others but my involvement within MAG has been to promote and further IGC. Why would we want to create such a division? On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > As the working group's to study the IGF and improvements, suggest it's best > not to recommend current MAG members and advisors in our nominations. >  Hardly impartial.  Not sure about past members, also probably not. > > Would be sensible to recommend people with a solid record of involvement in > the IGF (organized/led workshops, main sessions, remote access and > particularly national and regional IGFs). > > Adam > > > >> Fouad, our current timetable is the end of this week to submit names - but >> we are currently seeing whether a few days grace is available. >> >> Then of course CSTD has to choose from our slate - I have no idea what >> their >> timing might be. >> >> Clearly our timetable is very tight and not likely to ease up....and yes >> it >> would appear that those selected by CSTD might get quite short notice. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >>>  From: Fouad Bajwa >>>  Reply-To: , Fouad Bajwa >>> >>>  Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 03:36:33 +0500 >>>  To: , Ian Peter >>>  Cc: Katitza Rodriguez >>>  Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD >>> >>>  Hello Ian, >>> >>>  Thank you for sharing the attached document. It can be seen from the >>>  following text from the document that the CSTD WG will meet >>>  face-2-face back to back with the MAG meeting. This does create the >>>  need of IGC selected members to be actually present and if this list >>>  is finalized soon and supposedly any of the MAG members that are also >>>  IGC members are selected by the nominating committee, they can plan >>>  and book their stay well in advance so this can be managed >>>  conveniently within time? >>> >>>  b) Face-to-face consultations and first meeting of the Working Group >>>  A face-to-face open and inclusive consultation meeting will be >>>  organized by the Chair of the Working Group on IGF in Geneva on 24 >>>  November 2010, back ­to-back with the IGF open consultations and MAG >>>  meeting, scheduled to be organized by the IGF Secretariat from 22 to >>>  23 November 2010. The outcome of the open consultations will be used >>>  as input to the first CSTD Working Group meeting, which will take >>>  place in conjunction with the CSTD inter-sessional panel meeting in >>>  December 2010. >>> >>>  Do we have a schedule for the Nominating Committee to conduct the >>>  process for selection of its members to the CSTD WG yet? >>> >>>  -- Best >>>  Fouad >>> >>> >>>  On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:27 AM, Ian Peter >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>  Hi Katitza, >>>> >>>>  We don't have a great deal of information and are seeking more, but >>>> this >>>>  attachment might help and gives a basic explanation. >>>> >>>>  Ian Peter >>>> >>>> >>>>>  From: Katitza Rodriguez >>>>>  Organization: EFF >>>>>  Reply-To: , Katitza Rodriguez >>>>> >>>>>  Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:21:50 +0200 >>>>>  To: >>>>>  Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD >>>>> >>>>>  Dear Ian, >>>>> >>>>>  Can you please let us know when does the CSTD meeting will take place? >>>>>  If its only a meeting, or many different meetings? How much time the >>>>>  tasks might include? This would be useful to make sure people will >>>>>  assume the responsibilities they need to take for that position. >>>>> >>>>>  Thank you, 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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Oct 25 11:01:38 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:01:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Do you think a MAG member wouldn't be carrying what you mentioned? MAG >members have also be selected from within IGC? I can't speak for >others but my involvement within MAG has been to promote and further >IGC. Why would we want to create such a division? Because you would be reviewing yourself and your own future. Doesn't make good sense, or good process. I've been a MAG member, so am also speaking from experience. Also, I think it is time to share experience around, but that's not the main reason in this case. Best, Adam >On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> As the working group's to study the IGF and improvements, suggest it's best >> not to recommend current MAG members and advisors in our nominations. >>  Hardly impartial.  Not sure about past members, also probably not. >> >> Would be sensible to recommend people with a solid record of involvement in >> the IGF (organized/led workshops, main sessions, remote access and >> particularly national and regional IGFs). >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> Fouad, our current timetable is the end of this week to submit names - but >>> we are currently seeing whether a few days grace is available. >>> >>> Then of course CSTD has to choose from our slate - I have no idea what >>> their >>> timing might be. >>> >>> Clearly our timetable is very tight and not likely to ease up....and yes >>> it >>> would appear that those selected by CSTD might get quite short notice. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>  From: Fouad Bajwa >>>>  Reply-To: , Fouad Bajwa >>>> >>>>  Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 03:36:33 +0500 >>>>  To: , Ian Peter >>>>  Cc: Katitza Rodriguez >>>>  Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD >>>> >>>>  Hello Ian, >>>> >>>>  Thank you for sharing the attached document. It can be seen from the >>>>  following text from the document that the CSTD WG will meet >>>>  face-2-face back to back with the MAG meeting. This does create the >>>>  need of IGC selected members to be actually present and if this list >>>>  is finalized soon and supposedly any of the MAG members that are also >>>>  IGC members are selected by the nominating committee, they can plan >>>>  and book their stay well in advance so this can be managed >>>>  conveniently within time? >>>> >>>>  b) Face-to-face consultations and first meeting of the Working Group >>>>  A face-to-face open and inclusive consultation meeting will be >>>>  organized by the Chair of the Working Group on IGF in Geneva on 24 >>>>  November 2010, back ­to-back with the IGF open consultations and MAG >>>>  meeting, scheduled to be organized by the IGF Secretariat from 22 to >>>>  23 November 2010. The outcome of the open consultations will be used >>>>  as input to the first CSTD Working Group meeting, which will take >>>>  place in conjunction with the CSTD inter-sessional panel meeting in >>>>  December 2010. >>>> >>>>  Do we have a schedule for the Nominating Committee to conduct the >>>>  process for selection of its members to the CSTD WG yet? >>>> >>>>  -- Best >>>>  Fouad >>>> >>>> >>>>  On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:27 AM, Ian Peter >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>  Hi Katitza, >>>>> >>>>>  We don't have a great deal of information and are seeking more, but >>>>> this >>>>>  attachment might help and gives a basic explanation. >>>>> >>>>>  Ian Peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>  From: Katitza Rodriguez >>>>>>  Organization: EFF >>>>>>  Reply-To: , Katitza Rodriguez >>>>>> >>>>>>  Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:21:50 +0200 >>>>>>  To: >>>>>>  Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD >>>>>> >>>>>>  Dear Ian, >>>>>> >>>>>>  Can you please let us know when does the CSTD meeting will take place? >>>>>>  If its only a meeting, or many different meetings? How much time the >>>>>>  tasks might include? This would be useful to make sure people will > >>>>>  assume the responsibilities they need to take for that position. >>>>>> >>>>>>  Thank you, 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 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>  governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>  governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>  http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > >-- >Regards. >-------------------------- >Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon Oct 25 11:03:53 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:03:53 +0900 Subject: [governance] Towards IGF Japan meeting - Oct 29-30 in Okinawa Message-ID: Though very late, we are pleased to inform that first attempt of national IGF meeting in Japan, "The way towards IGF Japan" will be held on Oct 29-30, this week, in Okinawa. It will be organized as a side event to APEC TEL Ministerial meeting. The preparation has been so short, hence this late announcement. There will be English translation. The participation is open to all, free of charge. Markus Kummer has confirmed to participate. Here is the website: http://www.jaipa.or.jp/topics/?p=363 If you still can participate, please contact myself or info at jaipa.or.jp the organizer, JAIPA, for more details. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Oct 25 11:17:01 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:17:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CC59F6D.2020402@wzb.eu> Am 25.10.2010 17:01, schrieb Adam Peake: >> Do you think a MAG member wouldn't be carrying what you mentioned? MAG >> members have also be selected from within IGC? I can't speak for >> others but my involvement within MAG has been to promote and further >> IGC. Why would we want to create such a division? > > > Because you would be reviewing yourself and your own future. Doesn't > make good sense, or good process. I agree with Adam (although I withdrew my name for other reasons). Let's hope that all stakeholder groups take a similar view on this issue. jeanette > I've been a MAG member, so am also speaking from experience. Also, I > think it is time to share experience around, but that's not the main > reason in this case. > > Best, > > Adam > > > > >> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> As the working group's to study the IGF and improvements, suggest >>> it's best >>> not to recommend current MAG members and advisors in our nominations. >>> Hardly impartial. Not sure about past members, also probably not. >>> >>> Would be sensible to recommend people with a solid record of >>> involvement in >>> the IGF (organized/led workshops, main sessions, remote access and >>> particularly national and regional IGFs). >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>>> Fouad, our current timetable is the end of this week to submit names >>>> - but >>>> we are currently seeing whether a few days grace is available. >>>> >>>> Then of course CSTD has to choose from our slate - I have no idea what >>>> their >>>> timing might be. >>>> >>>> Clearly our timetable is very tight and not likely to ease up....and >>>> yes >>>> it >>>> would appear that those selected by CSTD might get quite short notice. >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> From: Fouad Bajwa >>>>> Reply-To: , Fouad Bajwa >>>>> >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 03:36:33 +0500 >>>>> To: , Ian Peter >>>>> Cc: Katitza Rodriguez >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD >>>>> >>>>> Hello Ian, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for sharing the attached document. It can be seen from the >>>>> following text from the document that the CSTD WG will meet >>>>> face-2-face back to back with the MAG meeting. This does create the >>>>> need of IGC selected members to be actually present and if this list >>>>> is finalized soon and supposedly any of the MAG members that are also >>>>> IGC members are selected by the nominating committee, they can plan >>>>> and book their stay well in advance so this can be managed >>>>> conveniently within time? >>>>> >>>>> b) Face-to-face consultations and first meeting of the Working Group >>>>> A face-to-face open and inclusive consultation meeting will be >>>>> organized by the Chair of the Working Group on IGF in Geneva on 24 >>>>> November 2010, back ­to-back with the IGF open consultations and MAG >>>>> meeting, scheduled to be organized by the IGF Secretariat from 22 to >>>>> 23 November 2010. The outcome of the open consultations will be used >>>>> as input to the first CSTD Working Group meeting, which will take >>>>> place in conjunction with the CSTD inter-sessional panel meeting in >>>>> December 2010. >>>>> >>>>> Do we have a schedule for the Nominating Committee to conduct the >>>>> process for selection of its members to the CSTD WG yet? >>>>> >>>>> -- Best >>>>> Fouad >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:27 AM, Ian Peter >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Katitza, >>>>>> >>>>>> We don't have a great deal of information and are seeking more, but >>>>>> this >>>>>> attachment might help and gives a basic explanation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ian Peter >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Katitza Rodriguez >>>>>>> Organization: EFF >>>>>>> Reply-To: , Katitza Rodriguez >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:21:50 +0200 >>>>>>> To: >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nominations to CSTD >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Ian, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you please let us know when does the CSTD meeting will take >>>>>>> place? >>>>>>> If its only a meeting, or many different meetings? How much time >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> tasks might include? This would be useful to make sure people will >> >>>>> assume the responsibilities they need to take for that position. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you, 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 25 11:28:36 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:28:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] Towards IGF Japan meeting - Oct 29-30 in Okinawa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Also highly recommended on Oct. 30 http://www.rallytorestoresanity.com/ On Oct 25, 2010, at 5:03 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Though very late, we are pleased to inform that first attempt of > national IGF meeting in Japan, "The way towards IGF Japan" will be > held on Oct 29-30, this week, in Okinawa. > > It will be organized as a side event to APEC TEL Ministerial meeting. > The preparation has been so short, hence this late announcement. > > There will be English translation. The participation is open to all, > free of charge. > > Markus Kummer has confirmed to participate. > > Here is the website: > http://www.jaipa.or.jp/topics/?p=363 > > If you still can participate, please contact myself or > info at jaipa.or.jp the organizer, JAIPA, for more details. > > izumi > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Oct 25 15:44:55 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 06:44:55 +1100 Subject: [governance] CSTD Candidates list Message-ID: The list of candidates for CSTD nominations is now closed - although the Nomcom reserves the right to consider further names at its discretion and under special circumstances. The names submitted for nomcom consideration are Jeremy Malcolm Tim McGinnis Anupam Agrawal Rafik Dammak Mohamed Zahran Cheryl Langdon-Orr Jamil Goheer Wolfgang Kleinwächter Imran Ahmed Shah AHM Bazlur Rahman William J. Drake Izumi Aizu Michael Gurstein Divina Frau-Meigs Baudouin Schombe Fearghas McKay Hakikur Rahman Solomon Gizaw Fouad Bajwa Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare Pascal Bekono Milton L. Mueller Vittorio Bertola Shahzad Ahmad Katitza Rodriguez Julian Casasbuenas G - Hong Xue Hanane Boujemi Jeremy Hunsinger Vivek Misra Marília Maciel Sivasubramanian M Carlos Watson Parminder Jeet Singh Anriette Esterhuysen Candidates who have not already done so are invited to still send information in support of their nomination to nomcom at igf-online.net for consideration by nomcom members - but please do so quickly, and we suggest include your name in the subject line of the message so we can find the information more readily. Ian Peter On behalf of nomcom ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 26 00:02:54 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:02:54 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC & IGF In-Reply-To: References: <4CBC9C42.1080801@apc.org> <4CBD427D.3070809@itforchange.net> <41784D1C-ED35-4DC4-8256-8CBF67BE520D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4CBD6936.9060202@itforchange.net> <982CDE0C-6142-48D4-B1AF-9FEBCF539AD4@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <6B16CB9D-8D16-44FE-BA7C-C48A652EA1C0@ciroap.org> On 25/10/2010, at 6:27 PM, William Drake wrote: > With the GA discussion approaching etc, shouldn't the IGC express support for the one part of the UN that's actively promoted its engagement in IG discussions? This seems more immediately pressing to me than trying to visualize a whole new global institutional topography for EC, which one would expect to require a lot of time and dialogue... Yes and no, in my opinion. We already have several submissions expressing support for the continuation of the IGF, which have fed into the GA's deliberation. But now that EC is finally back on the table, I don't think we want it to let it slip away again. Even more so than the IGF, if properly realised it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cement civil society's place in global governance for the Internet regime. I like your idea about an IGF-based multistakeholder observatory committee. But do others on this list have other ideas about what EC should be? It is just not concrete enough at the moment, and I think one positive thing that the IGC can contribute is to put forward some specific ideas. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue Oct 26 06:58:13 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:58:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC & IGF In-Reply-To: <6B16CB9D-8D16-44FE-BA7C-C48A652EA1C0@ciroap.org> References: <4CBC9C42.1080801@apc.org> <4CBD427D.3070809@itforchange.net> <41784D1C-ED35-4DC4-8256-8CBF67BE520D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4CBD6936.9060202@itforchange.net> <982CDE0C-6142-48D4-B1AF-9FEBCF539AD4@graduateinstitute.ch> <6B16CB9D-8D16-44FE-BA7C-C48A652EA1C0@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <23A70680-CB9A-4D07-BBA5-6C6EF89F59AB@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Jeremy On Oct 26, 2010, at 6:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 25/10/2010, at 6:27 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> With the GA discussion approaching etc, shouldn't the IGC express support for the one part of the UN that's actively promoted its engagement in IG discussions? This seems more immediately pressing to me than trying to visualize a whole new global institutional topography for EC, which one would expect to require a lot of time and dialogue... > > Yes and no, in my opinion. We already have several submissions expressing support for the continuation of the IGF, which have fed into the GA's deliberation. IGF will be renewed, the issue is in what format, what "improvements" may be made. For example, would it be an improvement from a nongovernmental stakeholder standpoint to have the secretariat become a unit of DESA directly under Mr. Sha in NY (which could also entail moving the consultations there), to whom we've just written about the marginalization of nongovernmental stakeholders at DESA's NY consultation on EC? There are reasons to wonder. There are also reasons, one would think, to express support for those who've consistently supported us. > But now that EC is finally back on the table, I don't think we want it to let it slip away again. Even more so than the IGF, if properly realised it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cement civil society's place in global governance for the Internet regime. I have no less than four disagreements with the second sentence but that's neither here nor there, the main point is there's no real trade-off between doing a brief statement expressing support for the secretariat and collectively cogitating on grand designs for EC. > > I like your idea about an IGF-based multistakeholder observatory committee. But do others on this list have other ideas about what EC should be? It is just not concrete enough at the moment, and I think one positive thing that the IGC can contribute is to put forward some specific ideas. > Sure. Cheers, Bill > *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Oct 26 09:24:22 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:24:22 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC & IGF In-Reply-To: <23A70680-CB9A-4D07-BBA5-6C6EF89F59AB@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4CBC9C42.1080801@apc.org> <4CBD427D.3070809@itforchange.net> <41784D1C-ED35-4DC4-8256-8CBF67BE520D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4CBD6936.9060202@itforchange.net> <982CDE0C-6142-48D4-B1AF-9FEBCF539AD4@graduateinstitute.ch> <6B16CB9D-8D16-44FE-BA7C-C48A652EA1C0@ciroap.org> <23A70680-CB9A-4D07-BBA5-6C6EF89F59AB@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: On 26-Oct-2010, at 6:58 PM, William Drake wrote: > IGF will be renewed, the issue is in what format, what > "improvements" may be made. For example, would it be an improvement > from a nongovernmental stakeholder standpoint to have the > secretariat become a unit of DESA directly under Mr. Sha in NY > (which could also entail moving the consultations there), to whom > we've just written about the marginalization of nongovernmental > stakeholders at DESA's NY consultation on EC? There are reasons to > wonder. There are also reasons, one would think, to express support > for those who've consistently supported us. Sure, thanks for raising this. Do you have time to propose some text? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hempalshrestha at gmail.com Tue Oct 26 10:12:22 2010 From: hempalshrestha at gmail.com (Hempal Shrestha) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:57:22 +0545 Subject: [governance] Towards IGF Japan meeting - Oct 29-30 in Okinawa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Izumi, On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Though very late, we are pleased to inform that first attempt of > national IGF meeting in Japan, "The way towards IGF Japan" will be > held on Oct 29-30, this week, in Okinawa. > > It will be organized as a side event to APEC TEL Ministerial meeting. > The preparation has been so short, hence this late announcement. > Only the sharing in this list seems to be little delayed, the program looks to be very well though and well prepared indeed. My best wishes for the event. > There will be English translation. The participation is open to all, > free of charge. > > Markus Kummer has confirmed to participate. > > Here is the website: > http://www.jaipa.or.jp/topics/?p=363 > > If you still can participate, please contact myself or > info at jaipa.or.jp the organizer, JAIPA, for more details. > > izumi > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Best Regards, Hempal Shrestha Kathmandu, Nepal Mobile No : 977-98510-77031 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 26 11:31:22 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:31:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: Guidance sought on CSTD nominations and In-Reply-To: <4CC5318D.20608@apc.org> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D42B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CC5318D.20608@apc.org> Message-ID: In message <4CC5318D.20608 at apc.org>, at 09:28:13 on Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Anriette Esterhuysen writes >What do we know about the process of convening the CSTD working group? The original plan, revealed in Vilnius, was to have some sort of public consultation during October (which is reportedly much delayed), then gather the WG in Geneva on the 24th November[1]. The composition was to be 20 nominees from the Government sector and 10 each from Private Sector (ICC?) and Civil Society. The Internet Technical Community does not have its own stakeholder group of ten, although from what I read on this list it is hoped that part of both of the non-government groups will comprise individuals with that background. [1] That meeting is sandwiched in between the separately announced IGF Open Consulation/MAG meeting and a regular CSTD inter-sessional panel the following week, which includes WSIS follow-up on the agenda. Assuming the IGF is renewed in a form which makes sense to continue the work, there will be two further meetings of the WG in February and March, to complete a report which will be put in front of the CSTD annual session in May 2011 - and sent from there to ECOSOC, UN General Assembly etc. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From meryem at marzouki.info Tue Oct 26 12:27:27 2010 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:27:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: Guidance sought on CSTD nominations and In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D42B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CC5318D.20608@apc.org> Message-ID: Le 26 oct. 10 à 17:31, Roland Perry a écrit : > In message <4CC5318D.20608 at apc.org>, at 09:28:13 on Mon, 25 Oct > 2010, Anriette Esterhuysen writes > >> What do we know about the process of convening the CSTD working >> group? > > The original plan, revealed in Vilnius, was to have some sort of > public consultation during October (which is reportedly much > delayed), then gather the WG in Geneva on the 24th November[1]. > > The composition was to be 20 nominees from the Government sector > and 10 each from Private Sector (ICC?) and Civil Society. The > Internet Technical Community does not have its own stakeholder > group of ten I'm wondering whether this decision was argumented, or explained in any way? Do we know whether entities usually understood as part of the ITC have protested or undertaken any action - if only by taking the floor at the Vilnius meeting where this was announced, or by sending a letter afterwards, asking for explanation? For sure they haven't remained silent. If so, have they got any answer? Thanks. Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From valeriab at apc.org Tue Oct 26 13:14:32 2010 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:14:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] CSTD nominations ** APC endorsements Message-ID: <08B5E3DA-4C0A-4679-84E8-952463861998@apc.org> Hi all, The APC policy team was very pleased to see such an extensive and qualified list of nominations for the CSTD working group. We are confident that from this list of people we will be able to choose excellent CS representatives and believe that the scope and depth of experience on this list is a reflection of all of the good work we have done in the IG space over the last 10 years. However, given the fact that choices must be made, the APC policy team created a list of individuals we would like to endorse. These nominations in no way imply that we believe that the invidviduals we do not endorse are anything less than excellent candidates. Regardless of outcome, we look forward to working with the members of the committee. The APC policy team would like to endorse the nominations of the following people: Anriette Esterhuysen, APC Executive Director: Anriette has been APC's representative in the CSTD since it started dealing with WSIS follow-up in 2007. She has been one of the two or three civil society people that has worked hard in this space where non-governmental stakeholders have a precarious position in that they can speak in the open sessions, but only observe (with a few exceptions) during negotiation of resolutions to ECOSOC. Anriette strongly supports the IGF but has consistently proposed improvements. Being from Africa, means she has a useful understanding of how developing country stakeholders, particularly from Africa, experience the IGF. Anriette has never been nominated for or served on the MAG. Parminder Jeet Singh, IT for Change: Similar to Anriette, Parminder has been active in the CSTD and we think familiarity and experience with CSTD processes are important criteria when selecting candidates for this working group. Julian Casasbuenas, Colnodo: Julian has been active in all the LAC IGFs and in the global IGF. He is an active member of ISOC and will bring both civil society and technical community perspectives to the working group. Shahzad Ahmad, Bytes for All: Shahzad is very active in internet rights campaigns and would bring both an Asian and a human rights perspective. He has been involved in all the IGFs to date. Marilia Maciel, Center for Technology and Society, Getulio Vargas Foundation: Marilia would bring a solid understanding of remote participation and has also expressed a desire to be more involved in IG spaces via her nomination for IGC coordinator. She will bring a regional perspective, and through her association with Diplo, she has a really good understanding of the capacity building opportunities, and challenges, in the IGF process. Bill Drake: Bill has been a pioneer of inclusive IG processes with a long history of constructive support and criticism. He is based in Geneva which could be very important as it is not certain that there will be funding for working group members to travel to all the meetings. His commitment to the development agenda in the IGF is very important. Developing country participation is something that IGF improvements has to address seriously. Michael Gurstein: Michael is a very active CS member and brings a community informatics perspective to the IGF. Divina Frau-Meigs: Divina is a WSIS veteran with a solid understanding of the information society policy issues. She also brings the important perspectives someone concerned with of education, cultural and linguistic diversity. Her understanding of UNESCO will also be useful to the working group. Katitza Rodriguez, Electronic Frontier Foundation: Originally from Peru, Katitza is EFF's International Rights Director. Her knowledge on cybersecurity at the intersection of privacy, freedom of expression, and copyright enforcement would bring an important integral perspective to the working group. Best, Valeria Betancourt ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Oct 26 14:45:17 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:45:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: Guidance sought on CSTD nominations and In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D42B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CC5318D.20608@apc.org> Message-ID: In message , at 18:27:27 on Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Meryem Marzouki writes >> The original plan, revealed in Vilnius, was to have some sort of >>public consultation during October (which is reportedly much delayed), >>then gather the WG in Geneva on the 24th November[1]. >> >> The composition was to be 20 nominees from the Government sector and >>10 each from Private Sector (ICC?) and Civil Society. The Internet >>Technical Community does not have its own stakeholder group of ten > >I'm wondering whether this decision was argumented, or explained in any >way? It was offered by the chair as an option (expressed as being the original "WGIG stakeholders"), during the special lunchtime session in Vilnius. By the end of the session, despite several interventions supporting "all stakeholders including ITC", it was still the chair's preferred model (with government balanced with non-government, and maybe thinking that 30+10+10+10 would be too big a group). The chair also seemed to want the stakeholder groups (including the five individual UN regions) to make their choices independently of himself. I know some people think that including at least some of the governments who have been previous IGF organisers would be useful, however that requires more insight into the UN's selection processes than I currently have. >Do we know whether entities usually understood as part of the ITC have >protested or undertaken any action - if only by taking the floor at >the Vilnius meeting where this was announced, or by sending a letter >afterwards, asking for explanation? For sure they haven't remained >silent. If so, have they got any answer? Whatever representations were made, I don't think it has changed anything yet. Although many of those concerned have been tied up in the ITU Plenipot for the last few weeks, and others were perhaps expecting the opportunity to contribute to an online consultation, during October, regarding the arrangements (amongst other things). -- 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 anriette at apc.org Wed Oct 27 14:33:51 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:33:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Consultation on WSIS Forum 2010 themes Message-ID: <4CC8708F.2030205@apc.org> Hi all There is an online consultation underway on what themes the 2011 WSIS Forum in Geneva should focus on. The consultation can be found at http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2011/forum/ or, more precisely, http://www.wsis-community.org/pg/groups/15325/wsis-forum-2011-open-consultation-on-the-format-and-the-thematic-focus/). It would be good if people in this community could respond. Anriette -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville, 2019, south africa www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Oct 27 19:26:09 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:26:09 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: SPC launches 'e-Pacific Island Countries' - an online portal for Pacific ICT information In-Reply-To: <469D55E0A215504CAE38D09D178E5F3D2EC2D70F00@MAILBOX.tfl.internal> References: <469D55E0A215504CAE38D09D178E5F3D2EC2D70F00@MAILBOX.tfl.internal> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Date: Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:36 AM Subject: SPC launches 'e-Pacific Island Countries' - an online portal for Pacific ICT information To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" Cc: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Dear All, http://www.e-pic.info/ is an online Portal for Pacific ICT information. Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro *Group Legal Regulatory Officer* Telecom Fiji Limited [image: maillogo] Phone (679) 3210 278 Mobile (679) 9982851 Fax (679) 3312616 Visit us at: www.tfl.com.fj *This email may be legally privileged and information contained in this email unless expressly stated does not represent the views of Telecom (Fiji) Limited and the contents of this email is considered confidential and intended for the recipients exclusively. Access to this email by anyone other than the recipient is unauthorised.** In opening this email, the recipent indemnifies the sender from any such virus; spy ware, Trojans, worms, hackers and any other related cyber threats. If you are not the intended recipient, any copying, disclosure, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on this is prohibited and may be unlawful. **The sender of this email will not be responsible for ** any virus; spy ware, Trojans, worms, hackers and any other related cyber threats Telecom (Fiji) Limited shall not accept any liability or responsibility if information or data for whatever reason is corrupted or does not reach its intended recipient(s). No warranty is given that this email is void of virus; spy ware, Trojans, worms and the like.* -- Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro P.O.Box 17862 Suva Fiji Islands Cell: +679 9982851 Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj "Wisdom is far better than riches." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2950 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 24963 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Oct 27 22:47:44 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:47:44 +0800 Subject: [governance] New CSTD consultation on WSIS follow-up Message-ID: The CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for Development) has just released a consultation questionnaire on WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) outcomes, excluding the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) which will be the subject of a separate consultation. It is available in online form here: http://www.unctad.info/en/CSTD_WSIS5. Whilst we could write a collective response, the questionnaire is directed to individuals, so it would be good to have as many individual IGC members respond to this questionnaire as possible. The deadline is 14 December 2010. If there is a feeling that we should also respond collectively, please respond to this thread to that effect. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From iza at anr.org Thu Oct 28 02:51:07 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:51:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] New CSTD consultation on WSIS follow-up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Jeremy for sharing this. If I may add, it will be useful for any individual/organization sending response, to share the text with us all, so that we can learn from each other. izumi 2010/10/28 Jeremy Malcolm : > The CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for Development) has just > released a consultation questionnaire on WSIS (World Summit on the > Information Society) outcomes, excluding the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) > which will be the subject of a separate consultation.  It is available in > online form here: http://www.unctad.info/en/CSTD_WSIS5. > Whilst we could write a collective response, the questionnaire is directed > to individuals, so it would be good to have as many individual IGC members > respond to this questionnaire as possible.  The deadline is 14 December > 2010.  If there is a feeling that we should also respond collectively, > please respond to this thread to that effect. > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Thu Oct 28 06:18:13 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:18:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] New CSTD consultation on WSIS follow-up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CC94DE5.9090104@apc.org> Dear all I strongly encourage people who are involved in any kind of WSIS implementation to respond sharing information about their work. The information gathered through this process will make it into the reports on WSIS follow up which are tabled at the CSTD meeting, which then reports on progress to ECOSOC. This time around they are doing a WSIS + 5 review. UNCTAD/CSTD actually tries hard to get civil society input into these reports, but they can only put into the reports what they get. The diversity of work being done on ICT and "people-centred development" and "inclusive information society" objectives is not adequatly reflected. There is often a lot about what governments and intergovernmental agencies are doing, and some flagship private sector and public private efforts, but very little about the range of civil society and local, smaller, business initiatives. This time around they are also asking what we think has not been done.. and what should be prioritised going forward. It might therefore be good to also do a collective IGC response, Jeremy... in addition to responses from individuals or organisations on this list. Cheers Anriette On 28/10/10 04:47, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > The CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for Development) has > just released a consultation questionnaire on WSIS (World Summit on > the Information Society) outcomes, excluding the IGF (Internet > Governance Forum) which will be the subject of a separate > consultation. It is available in online form here: > http://www.unctad.info/en/CSTD_WSIS5. > > Whilst we could write a collective response, the questionnaire is > directed to individuals, so it would be good to have as many > individual IGC members respond to this questionnaire as possible. The > deadline is 14 December 2010. If there is a feeling that we should > also respond collectively, please respond to this thread to that effect. > > -- > > *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. > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director association for progressive communications www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Oct 28 07:20:42 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:20:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC & IGF In-Reply-To: References: <4CBC9C42.1080801@apc.org> <4CBD427D.3070809@itforchange.net> <41784D1C-ED35-4DC4-8256-8CBF67BE520D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4CBD6936.9060202@itforchange.net> <982CDE0C-6142-48D4-B1AF-9FEBCF539AD4@graduateinstitute.ch> <6B16CB9D-8D16-44FE-BA7C-C48A652EA1C0@ciroap.org> <23A70680-CB9A-4D07-BBA5-6C6EF89F59AB@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Hi On Oct 26, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 26-Oct-2010, at 6:58 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> IGF will be renewed, the issue is in what format, what "improvements" may be made. For example, would it be an improvement from a nongovernmental stakeholder standpoint to have the secretariat become a unit of DESA directly under Mr. Sha in NY (which could also entail moving the consultations there), to whom we've just written about the marginalization of nongovernmental stakeholders at DESA's NY consultation on EC? There are reasons to wonder. There are also reasons, one would think, to express support for those who've consistently supported us. > > Sure, thanks for raising this. Do you have time to propose some text? It doesn't appear there's much interest in addressing this, so the ISOC and ICC briefing doc for UN GA reps will have to suffice as the nongovernmental view for now. Maybe the CSTD group will address it if it's relevant at that point... 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 ceo at bnnrc.net Thu Oct 28 10:08:37 2010 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:08:37 +0600 Subject: [governance] CSTD 2010-2011 Inter-sessional Panel Message-ID: Event: CSTD 2010-2011 Inter-sessional Panel Date: 15-17 December 2010 Location: Geneva Venue: Palais des Nations Description: The panel will address the following two priority themes: Theme I: which is related to the Commission´s mandate to assist the Economic and Social Council in the follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS): a.. Measuring the impact of information and communications technologies for development. Theme II: which is related to the Commission´s traditional mandate on science and technology: a.. Technologies to address challenges in areas such as agriculture and water. In addition, the panel will address the follow-up to WSIS. Findings and recommendations of the panel will be considered at the 14th session of the CSTD, to be held in May 2011. Language(s): English Contact: Mongi Hamdi Head of the CSTD Secretariat, UNCTAD E.: mongi.hamdi at unctad.org Related sites: www.unctad.org/cstd www.unctad.org/st Bazlu _________________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] & Head, Community Radio Academy House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1px.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Oct 28 10:27:32 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:27:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011, 16 to 20 May Geneva In-Reply-To: <982CDE0C-6142-48D4-B1AF-9FEBCF539AD4@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4CBC9C42.1080801@apc.org> <4CBD427D.3070809@itforchange.net> <41784D1C-ED35-4DC4-8256-8CBF67BE520D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4CBD6936.9060202@itforchange.net> <982CDE0C-6142-48D4-B1AF-9FEBCF539AD4@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: In message <982CDE0C-6142-48D4-B1AF-9FEBCF539AD4 at graduateinstitute.ch>, at 13:53:18 on Thu, 21 Oct 2010, William Drake writes >The ICC says "Deliberations start on 26 October and the final decision >will be taken by early December."  Just looked at the UN GA webcast >site http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/c/general-assembly.html and >it looks like yesterday they talked about "the culture of peace," which >is item 15 on the agenda.  IGF renewal is part of item 17, "Information >and communications technologies for development"  to be considered by >the second committee.  So unless they're proceeding at a real snail's >pace or out of sequence, one would think they might get to this sooner >than next Tuesday.  Does anyone have current info On Monday 25th, the GA webcast was covering item 113(b) Election of Ecosoc Officers, and on Tuesday 26th item 41 (Cuba). There's not an archived webcast for yesterday (Wed 27th) - either they didn't sit, or they take a while to publish. Today they are doing items in the 70's (International Justice issues). What we need is a running order (or whatever their term for that is). Is it possible that some of the debates are taking place in side-rooms? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Oct 29 04:36:19 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:36:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011, 16 to 20 May Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <4CBC9C42.1080801@apc.org> <4CBD427D.3070809@itforchange.net> <41784D1C-ED35-4DC4-8256-8CBF67BE520D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4CBD6936.9060202@itforchange.net> <982CDE0C-6142-48D4-B1AF-9FEBCF539AD4@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: In message , at 15:27:32 on Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Roland Perry writes [UN General Assembly] >Today they are doing items in the 70's (International Justice issues). And today it's item 13 (ECOSOC issues, but not specifically the ICT ones we await in item 17). -- 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 Fri Oct 29 06:00:45 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:00:45 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] New CSTD consultation on WSIS follow-up References: <4CC94DE5.9090104@apc.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07342@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> I fully support Anriettes message. Here is another point: One of the big achievements in WSIS I in Geneva (December 2003) was the "Civil Society Declaration" handed out to the President of the Summit at the last Plenary meeting on 12 December 2003 http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf It would make sense if a small working group of the CS network could go through the document and compare it with the progress and failures since 2003. To have our own document noticed by the governments was a big point in 2003. We should not forget our own achievements and measure ourselves against the criteria we did set up in 2003 when we move forward to 2015. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] Gesendet: Do 28.10.2010 12:18 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] New CSTD consultation on WSIS follow-up Dear all I strongly encourage people who are involved in any kind of WSIS implementation to respond sharing information about their work. The information gathered through this process will make it into the reports on WSIS follow up which are tabled at the CSTD meeting, which then reports on progress to ECOSOC. This time around they are doing a WSIS + 5 review. UNCTAD/CSTD actually tries hard to get civil society input into these reports, but they can only put into the reports what they get. The diversity of work being done on ICT and "people-centred development" and "inclusive information society" objectives is not adequatly reflected. There is often a lot about what governments and intergovernmental agencies are doing, and some flagship private sector and public private efforts, but very little about the range of civil society and local, smaller, business initiatives. This time around they are also asking what we think has not been done.. and what should be prioritised going forward. It might therefore be good to also do a collective IGC response, Jeremy... in addition to responses from individuals or organisations on this list. Cheers Anriette On 28/10/10 04:47, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: The CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for Development) has just released a consultation questionnaire on WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) outcomes, excluding the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) which will be the subject of a separate consultation. It is available in online form here: http://www.unctad.info/en/CSTD_WSIS5. Whilst we could write a collective response, the questionnaire is directed to individuals, so it would be good to have as many individual IGC members respond to this questionnaire as possible. The deadline is 14 December 2010. If there is a feeling that we should also respond collectively, please respond to this thread to that effect. -- 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. -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director association for progressive communications www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Fri Oct 29 09:22:32 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:22:32 +0200 (CEST) Subject: AW: [governance] New CSTD consultation on WSIS follow-up In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07342@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4CC94DE5.9090104@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07342@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <24373789.115400.1288358552457.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k13> I fully agree Wolgangs views and proposal. Progress made in WSIS goals' achievements is also to be measured with regard to our own ones. I'd just recall what I still consider as a major failure in the so laudated multistaholderism. When we finalized our Declaration and launched it, we all emphasized and demanded that our Declaration was to be considered as an official WSIS document, in the same capacity as the intergovernmental Declaration and the Plan of Action. I was one of those of us who interceded with Adama Samasekou to obtain this consideration. In vain. That was a major disappointment for the most of CS organizations at the end of the Geneva Summit. That's why I'm still rather "agnostic" towards the multistakeholder cult, especially when it comes to be a model for future global governance. Best Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT   > Message du 29/10/10 12:02 > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Anriette Esterhuysen" , governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : AW: [governance] New CSTD consultation on WSIS follow-up > > > I fully support Anriettes message. > > Here is another point: One of the big achievements in WSIS I in Geneva (December 2003) was the "Civil Society Declaration" handed out to the President of the Summit at the last Plenary meeting on 12 December 2003 > http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf > > It would make sense if a small working group of the CS network could go through the document and compare it with the progress and failures since 2003. To have our own document noticed by the governments was a big point in 2003. We should not forget our own achievements and measure ourselves against the criteria we did set up in 2003 when we move forward to 2015. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] > Gesendet: Do 28.10.2010 12:18 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] New CSTD consultation on WSIS follow-up > > > Dear all > > I strongly encourage people who are involved in any kind of WSIS implementation to respond sharing information about their work. The information gathered through this process will make it into the reports on WSIS follow up which are tabled at the CSTD meeting, which then reports on progress to ECOSOC. This time around they are doing a WSIS + 5 review. > > UNCTAD/CSTD actually tries hard to get civil society input into these reports, but they can only put into the reports what they get. The diversity of work being done on ICT and "people-centred development" and "inclusive information society" objectives is not adequatly reflected. There is often a lot about what governments and intergovernmental agencies are doing, and some flagship private sector and public private efforts, but very little about the range of civil society and local, smaller, business initiatives. > > This time around they are also asking what we think has not been done.. and what should be prioritised going forward. It might therefore be good to also do a collective IGC response, Jeremy... in addition to responses from individuals or organisations on this list. > > Cheers > > Anriette > > > On 28/10/10 04:47, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > The CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for Development) has just released a consultation questionnaire on WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) outcomes, excluding the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) which will be the subject of a separate consultation. It is available in online form here: http://www.unctad.info/en/CSTD_WSIS5. > > Whilst we could write a collective response, the questionnaire is directed to individuals, so it would be good to have as many individual IGC members respond to this questionnaire as possible. The deadline is 14 December 2010. If there is a feeling that we should also respond collectively, please respond to this thread to that effect. > > > > > > > > > -- > 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. > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director > association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 29 09:43:21 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:43:21 +0200 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] New CSTD consultation on WSIS follow-up References: <4CC94DE5.9090104@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07342@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <24373789.115400.1288358552457.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k13> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07358@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Je34an Louis I agree, however the CS Delcaration is listed among the official documents on the WSIS Website. http://www.itu.int/wsis/geneva/index.html With other words, it is not a forgotten document and we should do something that it is remembered in the years ahead. Why not to work towards a new CS Declaration 2015. I expüect that with the WSIS Forum 2011 we will see something - led by governments - towards 2015. With so many new issues it would be a good opportunity to re-organize CS along the WSIS Plenary experience in 2011 and to draft an plan how to move towards 2015 from a CS perspective (as part of a multistakeholder approach) wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr] Gesendet: Fr 29.10.2010 15:22 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Betreff: re: AW: [governance] New CSTD consultation on WSIS follow-up I fully agree Wolgangs views and proposal. Progress made in WSIS goals' achievements is also to be measured with regard to our own ones. I'd just recall what I still consider as a major failure in the so laudated multistaholderism. When we finalized our Declaration and launched it, we all emphasized and demanded that our Declaration was to be considered as an official WSIS document, in the same capacity as the intergovernmental Declaration and the Plan of Action. I was one of those of us who interceded with Adama Samasekou to obtain this consideration. In vain. That was a major disappointment for the most of CS organizations at the end of the Geneva Summit. That's why I'm still rather "agnostic" towards the multistakeholder cult, especially when it comes to be a model for future global governance. Best Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT > Message du 29/10/10 12:02 > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Anriette Esterhuysen" , governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : AW: [governance] New CSTD consultation on WSIS follow-up > > > I fully support Anriettes message. > > Here is another point: One of the big achievements in WSIS I in Geneva (December 2003) was the "Civil Society Declaration" handed out to the President of the Summit at the last Plenary meeting on 12 December 2003 > http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf > > It would make sense if a small working group of the CS network could go through the document and compare it with the progress and failures since 2003. To have our own document noticed by the governments was a big point in 2003. We should not forget our own achievements and measure ourselves against the criteria we did set up in 2003 when we move forward to 2015. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] > Gesendet: Do 28.10.2010 12:18 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] New CSTD consultation on WSIS follow-up > > > Dear all > > I strongly encourage people who are involved in any kind of WSIS implementation to respond sharing information about their work. The information gathered through this process will make it into the reports on WSIS follow up which are tabled at the CSTD meeting, which then reports on progress to ECOSOC. This time around they are doing a WSIS + 5 review. > > UNCTAD/CSTD actually tries hard to get civil society input into these reports, but they can only put into the reports what they get. The diversity of work being done on ICT and "people-centred development" and "inclusive information society" objectives is not adequatly reflected. There is often a lot about what governments and intergovernmental agencies are doing, and some flagship private sector and public private efforts, but very little about the range of civil society and local, smaller, business initiatives. > > This time around they are also asking what we think has not been done.. and what should be prioritised going forward. It might therefore be good to also do a collective IGC response, Jeremy... in addition to responses from individuals or organisations on this list. > > Cheers > > Anriette > > > On 28/10/10 04:47, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > The CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for Development) has just released a consultation questionnaire on WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) outcomes, excluding the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) which will be the subject of a separate consultation. It is available in online form here: http://www.unctad.info/en/CSTD_WSIS5. > > Whilst we could write a collective response, the questionnaire is directed to individuals, so it would be good to have as many individual IGC members respond to this questionnaire as possible. The deadline is 14 December 2010. If there is a feeling that we should also respond collectively, please respond to this thread to that effect. > > > > > > > > > -- > 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. > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director > association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Fri Oct 29 10:05:34 2010 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:05:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] CFP: the 6th International Conference on Network and Information Systems Security (SAR-SSI 2011) Message-ID: <011901cb7772$5aa9ddd0$0ffd9970$@unimi.it> **************************************************************************** ********** Please accept our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP. **************************************************************************** ********** SAR/SSI-2011 CALL FOR PAPERS International Conference on Network and Information Systems Security La Rochelle, France - 18-21 May 2011 http://sarssi-conf.org The SAR-SSI conference series provides a forum for presenting novel research results, practical experiences and innovative ideas in network and information systems security. The goal of SAR-SSI-2011 is fostering exchanges among academic researchers, industry and a wider audience interested in network and information system security. The conference will offer a broad area of events, ranging from panels, tutorials, technical presentations and informal meetings. Prospective authors are encouraged to submit papers describing novel research contributions as well as proposals for tutorials and panels. Submissions can address theoretical issues in network and information system security or provide practical and operational experiences in security management. Languages for papers and presentations can be French or English, both languages being used in SAR-SSI. TOPICS Authors are invited to submit research papers, papers presenting a practical experience or new industrial applications, panel and tutorial proposals on topics related to network and information systems security. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: Network Security - Security of new network architectures (e.g. VoIP, MAN/WAN, Giga-Ethernet) - Security in wireless and adhoc networks, - Security of communications (e.g. VPN, IPsec, SSL, MPLS) - Security in backbone and IPv6 networks - Multicast security - Security in peer-to-peer systems - Security in embedded networks Formal methods and models for computer security - Applied cryptography - Authentication and access control - Anonymity and privacy - Metrology and security measurement - Public Key Infrastructures (PKI) - Security protocols - Security assessment and certification - Trust representation and management Computer Forensics and Incident Response - Intrusion detection systems, honeypots - Worms, Viruses, Botnets, Malware and Spyware - Security assessment Software and Systems Security - Reverse engineering and software protection - Methodology, ethics, legislation and regulation - Biometry and watermarking - E-commerce security - Security in vehicular communications XML, Web Services and Cloud Security - Web services and GRID computing security - Security on Untrusted Clouds - Frameworks for managing inter-organizational trust relationships - Web services exploitation of Trusted Computing - Secure orchestration of Web services PAPER SUBMISSIONS Submissions should not exceed 15 pages must include on the cover page the paper title, author(s) name(s) and affiliation, a full address (Phone, fax, e-mail), an abstract of the paper (150 words max) and no more than 5 keywords. Authors must submit an electronic version of their paper (PDF / A4 format). Authors are requested to use the sarssi.cls type and use the alpha style for the bibliography. For the final version the sources of the contribution in LaTeX will also be required. All accepted papers will also be published in the conference proceeding by IEEE, and will be indexed by IEEE Xplore Digital Library. The submission of papers must be done through the EasyChair Conference system using the following page: http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sarssi2011 PANEL PROPOSALS The conference may include panel sessions addressing topics of interest to the computer security community. Proposals for panels should list possible panellists, specifying those who have confirmed participation. Please submit panel proposals by email to the TPC co-chairs. JOURNAL PUBLICATION Authors of the best papers selected by the technical program committee will be invited to publish an extended version of their paper in a journal of international audience. TUTORIALS The conference will include a tutorial and prominent invited speakers session. The tutorials will address hot research and/or industry topics relating to network and information systems security. Please submit tutorial proposals by email to the TPC co-chairs. IMPORTANT DATES Submission: February 14th, 2011 Notification: March 29th, 2011 Camera Ready Version: April 25th, 2011 Registration: April 18th 2011 (reduced fare) Conference: May 18th-21st, 2011 COMMITTEES General Chairs - Ahmed Serhrouchni, Télécom ParisTech, France Steering Committee - Abdelmajid Bouabdallah, UTC, France - Danielle Boulanger, Univ. Lyon-Jean Moulin, France - Isabelle Chrisment, Université Nancy I, France - Alban Gabillon, Université de la Polynésie Française - Ludovic Mé, Supélec, France Technical Program Committee Chair - Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy Organizing Committee - Ibrahim Hajjeh, Ineovation, France - Jean Leneutre, Télécom ParisTech, France - Radwan Saâd - Ahmed Serhrouchni, Télécom ParisTech, France Technical Program Committee - Anas Abou El Kalam, ENSEEIHT, France - Mohammed Achemlal, France Telecom / Orange, France - Hossam Afifi, Telecom Sud Paris, France - Claudio Agostino Ardagna, Univ. degli Studi di Milano, Italy - Gildas Avoine, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgique - Nadia Bennani, INSA-Lyon, France - Christophe Bidan, Supélec, France - Karima Boudaoud, Ecole Polytechnique de l'Université de Nice - Sophia Antipolis, France - Adel Bouhoula, Higher School of Comm. of Tunis, Tunisie - Lionel Brunie, INSA-Lyon, France - Laurent Bussard, Eur. Microsoft Innovation Center, Germany - Laurent Butti, France Télécom/Orange Division R&D, France - Marco Casassa-Mont, HPLabs, UK - Yacine Challal, Univ. de Technologie de Compiègne, France - Ken Chen, Université de Paris 13, France - Yves Correc, DGA/CELAR, France - Bernard Cousin, IRISA, France - Mathieu Couture, Carleton University, Canada - Frederic Cuppens, Telecom Bretagne, France - Nora Cuppens-Boulahia, Telecom Bretagne, France - Hervé Debar, Telecom Sud Paris, France - Rachida Dssouli, Concordia University, Canada - Laurent Gallon, Univ. de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour, France - Sihem Guemara, Higher School of Comm. of Tunis, Tunisie - Gilles Guette, University of Rennes 1, France - Gaétan Hains, Université Paris-Est, France - Ibrahim Hajjeh, Ineovation, France - Artur Hecker, Télécom ParisTech, France - Guillaume Hiet, Supélec, Campus de Rennes, France - Mathieu Jaume, Lab. d'Informatique de Paris 6, France - Djamel Khadraoui, CRP Henri Tudor, Luxembourg - Jean-Louis Lanet, University of Limoges, France - Maryline Laurent, Telecom Sud Paris, France - Jean Leneutre, Télécom ParisTech, France - Daniel Le Métayer, INRIA Grenoble - Rhône-Alpes, France - Bruno Martin, Université de Nice Sophia Antipolis, France - Fabio Martinelli, IIT-CNR, Italy - Ludovic Mé, Ecole Sup. d'Electricité, Campus de Rennes, France - Farid Naït-Abdesselam, Univ. of Paris Descartes, France - Philippe Owezarski, LAAS-CNRS, France - Guillaume Piolle, Supélec, Campus de Rennes, France - Fabien Pouget, CERTA, France - Nicolas Prigent, Supélec, Campus de Rennes, France - Guy Pujolle, Laboratoire d'Informatique de Paris 6, France - Jean-Luc Richier, Lab. d'Informatique de Grenoble, France - Etienne Riviere, NTNU Trondheim, Norway - Jean-Marc Robert, École de Tech. Supérieure, Canada - Yves Roudier, Institut Eurécom, France - Jörg Schwenk, University of Bochum, Germany - Eric Totel, Supélec, Campus de Rennes, France - Frederic Tronel, Supélec, Campus de Rennes, France - Valerie Viet Triem Tong, Supélec, Campus de Rennes, France ____________________________________________ SESAR Lab - Dipartimento Tecnologie dell'Informazione Università degli Studi di Milano 26013 Crema (CR) – ITALY http://sesar.dti.unimi.it ____________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Oct 29 10:29:59 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:29:59 +0200 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] New CSTD consultation on WSIS follow-up In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07358@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4CC94DE5.9090104@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07342@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <24373789.115400.1288358552457.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k13> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07358@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4CCADA67.6090901@apc.org> Dear Wolfgang.. thanks for raising this.. when I wrote that message I was actually going to include the CS 2003 declaration URL.. but I was so busy that I did not. It is a very strong document. I looked at it recently, and it contains many issues which have not been focused on in WSIS follow up, but which are important and relevant for internet governance and public policy, such as copyright, the public domain, global citizenship, and more. Even the title is an important reminder: "Shaping information societies for human needs". I support Wolfgang's suggestion that we work toward a new declaration. We hope to use a new Global Information Society Watch interactive webspace (which will be launched in 2011) to ask civil society to reflect on what has been achieved (or not) in terms of the 2003 declaration we developed. The Tunis phase civil society declaration is at http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/contributions/co13.doc Its title is "Much more could have been achieved" :) As a matter of interest, I paste below what it says about internet governance.... Anriette Internet Governance Civil Society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which it has advocated for since 2003. We also are pleased that the IGF will have sufficient scope to deal with the issues we believe must be addressed, most notably the conformity of existing arrangements with the Geneva Principles, and other cross-cutting or multidimensional issues that cannot be optimally dealt with within current arrangements. However, we reiterate our concerns that the Forum must not be anchored in any existing specialized international organization, meaning that its legal form, finances, and professional staff should be independent. In addition, we reiterate our view that the forum should be more than a place for dialogue. As was recommended by the WGIG Report, it should also provide expert analysis, trend monitoring, and capacity building, including in close collaboration with external partners in the research community. We are concerned about the absence of details on how this forum will be created and on how it will be funded. We insist that the modalities of the IGF be determined in full cooperation with Civil Society. We emphasize that success in the forum, as in most areas of Internet governance, will be impossible without the full participation of Civil Society. By full participation we mean much more than playing a mere advisory role. Civil Society must be able to participate fully and equally both in plenary and any working or drafting group discussions, and must have the same opportunities as other stakeholders to influence agendas and outcomes. The Tunis Agenda addressed the issue of political oversight of critical Internet resources in its paragraphs 69 to 71. This, in itself, is an achievement. It is also important that governments recognized the need for the development of a set of Internet-related public policy principles that would frame political oversight of Internet resources. These principles must respect, protect and promote human rights as laid down in international human rights treaties, ensure equitable access to information and online opportunities for all, and promote development. It is important that governments have established that developing these principles should be a shared responsibility. However, it is very unfortunate that the Tunis Agenda suggests that governments are only willing to share this role and responsibility among themselves, in cooperation with international organisations. Civil Society remains strongly of the view that the formulation of appropriate and legitimate public policies pertaining to Internet governance requires the full and meaningful involvement of non-governmental stakeholders. With regard to paragraph 40 of the Tunis Agenda, we are disappointed that there is no mention that efforts to combat cyber-crime need to be exercised in the context of checks and balances provided by fundamental human rights, particularly freedom of expression and privacy. With regard to paragraph 63, we believe that a country code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) is a public good both for people of the concerned country or economy and for global citizens who have various linkages to particular countries. While we recognize the important role of governments in protecting the ccTLDs that refer to their countries or economies, this role must be executed in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in existing international treaties through a democratic, transparent and inclusive process with full involvement of all stakeholders. To ensure that development of the Internet and its governance takes place in the public interest, it is important for all stakeholders to better understand how core Internet governance functions -- as for example, DNS management, IP address allocation, and others -- are carried out. It is equally important that these same actors understand the linkages between broader Internet governance and Internet related matters such as cyber-crime, Intellectual Property Rights, e-commerce, e-government, human rights and capacity building and economic development. The responsibility of creating such awareness should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the governance and development of the Internet and emerging information and communication platforms. Equally it is essential that as this awareness develops in newer users of the Internet, older users must be open to the new perspectives that will emerge. On 29/10/10 15:43, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Je34an Louis > > I agree, however the CS Delcaration is listed among the official documents on the WSIS Website. > http://www.itu.int/wsis/geneva/index.html > > With other words, it is not a forgotten document and we should do something that it is remembered in the years ahead. Why not to work towards a new CS Declaration 2015. I expüect that with the WSIS Forum 2011 we will see something - led by governments - towards 2015. With so many new issues it would be a good opportunity to re-organize CS along the WSIS Plenary experience in 2011 and to draft an plan how to move towards 2015 from a CS perspective (as part of a multistakeholder approach) > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr] > Gesendet: Fr 29.10.2010 15:22 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > Betreff: re: AW: [governance] New CSTD consultation on WSIS follow-up > > > I fully agree Wolgangs views and proposal. Progress made in WSIS goals' achievements is also to be measured with regard to our own ones. > > I'd just recall what I still consider as a major failure in the so laudated multistaholderism. When we finalized our Declaration and launched it, we all emphasized and demanded that our Declaration was to be considered as an official WSIS document, in the same capacity as the intergovernmental Declaration and the Plan of Action. I was one of those of us who interceded with Adama Samasekou to obtain this consideration. In vain. That was a major disappointment for the most of CS organizations at the end of the Geneva Summit. > > That's why I'm still rather "agnostic" towards the multistakeholder cult, especially when it comes to be a model for future global governance. > > Best > Jean-Louis Fullsack > CSDPTT > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 29 21:42:21 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:42:21 +1100 Subject: [governance] CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom Message-ID: On behalf of the Nomcom, I can now announce that the following were chosen as IGC civil society nominations to CSTD, and we would ask that the co ­ ordinators deal with forwarding the names to CSTD in due course. Our report follows the names (which are in no particular order). Anriette Esterhuysen Parminder Singh Michael Gurstein Wolfgang Kleinwachter Izumi Aizu Katitza Rodriguez Marilia Maciel William J Drake Divina Frau-Meigs Milton Mueller Should any of the chosen reps be unavailable, the NomCom can advise its preferences for alternative candidates. Indeed a number of other candidates figured strongly in our thinking and it is a pity we were not able to include them all. REPORT The Nomcom was briefed on October 20, and asked to complete this task by October 31 ­ a very tight timeframe. The members selected were Qusai Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, Jacquiline Morris and Ian Peter. Ian Peter was elected Chair for the purpose of this exercise. Our first step was to call for nominations to be clarified or added to (original nominations were made in conjunction with the co coordinator ballot on October 10). A final list of candidates was published on governance list on October 24 as follows Jeremy Malcolm, Tim McGinnis , Anupam Agrawal , Rafik Dammak , Mohamed Zahran , Cheryl Langdon-Orr , Jamil Goheer , Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Imran Ahmed Shah , AHM Bazlur Rahman , William J. Drake, Izumi Aizu , Michael Gurstein , Divina Frau-Meigs , Baudouin Schombe , Fearghas McKay, Hakikur Rahman, Solomon Gizaw , Fouad Bajwa , Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare, Pascal Bekono , Milton L. Mueller, Vittorio Bertola , Shahzad Ahmad, Katitza Rodriguez, Julian Casasbuenas G, Hong Xue, Hanane Boujemi, Jeremy Hunsinger , Vivek Misra, Marília Maciel , Sivasubramanian M , Carlos Watson, Parminder Jeet Singh, Anriette Esterhuysen. Late nominations were also received from Anja Kovacs, Roland Perry, and Mohamed Zahran. The applications submitted after the closing dates were also examined by the NonCom. However, none of them could make it to the final list. In addition to selecting the 10 candidates to represent the civil society Internet Governance Caucus, the IGC Nomcom was asked to consider an informal request to include representatives of the "technical community". We have not done so specifically, because the request was informal and we do not believe it is appropriate in the spirit of multi stakeholderism for our group to try to represent the wishes of a separate stakeholder group. And while we would point out that among the names we are forwarding are people with long standing involvement in and knowledge of Internet technical and governance bodies, it is not up to us to formally attempt representation for these bodies in reponse to an informal request from some other party to do so. We believe a direct approach by CSTD to bodies such as the NRO and ISOC from CSTD would be more appropriate. Some private correspondence was undertaken with representatives of ISOC and RIRs before arriving at this position, and we believe it is the appropriate response for all parties concerned in the circumstances. No names were submitted by these bodies for Nomcom consideration. The group defined its selection criteria for IGC representation as 1. Regular contributor to IGC 2. Consultative style with IGC members 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with CSTD 4. Knowledge of the UN system 5. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives held by civil society The group also decided that it would consider both geographic and gender diversity in determining its final slate from among the most supported candidates. Nomcom members then scored candidates individually and each nomcom member who participated came up with a list of 10 names. These were collated , with the majority of candidates on our final list being initially selected by all participating nomcom members. The Nomcom then discussed finalisation of the slate and the merits of respective candidates, bearing in mind geographic and gender balance as much as possible to come up with a final list. This was a very tight timeframe. Nomcom members worked very well together and with a great deal of agreement on how to proceed to bring this to a successful conclusion in a tight timeframe. Finally, we must add that the slate of candidates available for selection was extraordinarily good, and representative of the diverse talents within the Internet Governance Caucus. While on this occasion, for the purposes of CSTD representation, the Nomcom clearly wanted to ensure that some of IGC¹s more experienced members were involved, we would like to stress that for future tasks, such as MAG rotation, different criteria would apply and we would like to see more people having the opportunity to represent IGC. So we would encourage unsuccessful nominees on this occasion to put their names forward again in the future and thank them for their offer to contribute on this occasion. Ian Peter On behalf of Nomcom PS - and as a personal note - we were only able to deliver a slate of candidates in this short period of time because of the calibre of the participating Nomcom members. Although the timeframe did not allow the participation of Qasai, I must say that Jacquiline, Guru and Hempal all displayed high level abilities to hear each other perspectives and compromise in order to get a result. It is not easy to undertake such an exercise in such a short time frame but the participating Nomcom members took to the task and did a wonderful job for IGC. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Fri Oct 29 22:09:53 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:09:53 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Ian and NomCom, Thank you very much for finalizing the final candidates for us, with very fair and balanced consideration and report. As co-coordinator, I really commend their work (not because I am selected ;-), within such limited time. I am writing this while holding the first IGF-Japan preparatory meeting in Okinawa. Markus is here, so was Paul Wilson, Rafik Dammak, Adam Peake and others of some 80 people. izumi 2010/10/30 Ian Peter : > On behalf of the Nomcom, I can now announce that the following were chosen > as  IGC civil society nominations to CSTD, and we would ask that the co ­ > ordinators deal with forwarding the names to CSTD in due course. Our report > follows the names (which are in no particular order). > > Anriette Esterhuysen > Parminder Singh > Michael Gurstein > Wolfgang Kleinwachter > Izumi Aizu > Katitza Rodriguez > Marilia Maciel > William J Drake > Divina Frau-Meigs > Milton Mueller > > Should any of the chosen reps be unavailable, the NomCom can advise its > preferences for alternative candidates. Indeed a number of other candidates > figured strongly in our thinking and it is a pity we were not able to > include them all. > > REPORT > > The Nomcom was briefed  on October 20, and asked to complete this task by > October 31 ­ a very tight timeframe. The members selected were Qusai > Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, Jacquiline Morris  and Ian Peter. > Ian Peter was  elected Chair for the purpose of this exercise. > > Our first step was to call for nominations to be clarified or added to > (original nominations were made in conjunction with the co coordinator > ballot on October 10). > > A final list of candidates was published on governance list on October 24 as > follows > > Jeremy Malcolm, Tim McGinnis , Anupam Agrawal , Rafik Dammak , Mohamed > Zahran , Cheryl Langdon-Orr , Jamil Goheer , Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Imran > Ahmed Shah , AHM Bazlur Rahman , William J. Drake, Izumi Aizu , Michael > Gurstein , Divina Frau-Meigs , Baudouin Schombe , Fearghas McKay, Hakikur > Rahman, Solomon Gizaw , Fouad Bajwa , Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare, Pascal Bekono > , Milton L. Mueller, Vittorio Bertola , Shahzad Ahmad, Katitza Rodriguez, > Julian Casasbuenas G, Hong Xue, Hanane Boujemi, Jeremy Hunsinger , Vivek > Misra, Marília Maciel , Sivasubramanian M , Carlos Watson, Parminder Jeet > Singh, Anriette Esterhuysen. > > Late nominations were also received from Anja Kovacs, Roland Perry, and > Mohamed Zahran. The applications submitted after the closing dates were also > examined by the NonCom. However, none of them could make it to the final > list. > > In addition to selecting the 10 candidates to represent the civil society > Internet Governance Caucus, the IGC Nomcom was asked to consider an informal > request to include representatives of the "technical community". > We have not done so specifically, because the request was informal and we do > not believe it is appropriate in the spirit of multi stakeholderism for our > group to try to represent the wishes of a separate stakeholder group. And > while we would point out that among the names we are forwarding are people > with long standing involvement in and knowledge of Internet technical and > governance bodies, it is not up to us to formally attempt representation for > these bodies in reponse to an informal request from some other party to do > so. We believe a direct approach by CSTD to bodies such as the NRO and ISOC > from CSTD would be more appropriate. > > Some private correspondence was undertaken with representatives of ISOC and > RIRs before arriving at this position, and we believe it is the appropriate > response for all parties concerned in the circumstances. No names were > submitted by these bodies for Nomcom consideration. > > The  group defined its selection criteria for IGC representation as > > 1. Regular contributor to IGC > 2. Consultative style with IGC members > 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with CSTD > 4. Knowledge of the UN system > 5. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives held by > civil society > > The group also decided that it would consider both geographic and gender > diversity in determining its final slate from among the most supported > candidates. > > Nomcom members then scored candidates individually and each nomcom member > who participated came up with a list of 10 names. These were collated , with > the majority of candidates on our final list being initially selected by all > participating nomcom members. The Nomcom then discussed finalisation of the > slate and the merits of respective candidates, bearing in mind geographic > and gender balance as much as possible to come up with a final list. > This was a very tight timeframe. Nomcom members worked very well together > and with a great deal of agreement on how to proceed to bring this to a > successful conclusion in a tight timeframe. > > Finally, we must add that the slate of candidates available for selection > was extraordinarily good, and representative of the diverse talents within > the Internet Governance Caucus. While on this occasion, for the purposes of > CSTD representation, the Nomcom clearly wanted to ensure that some of IGC¹s > more experienced members were involved, we would like to stress that for > future tasks, such as MAG rotation, different criteria would apply and we > would like to see more people having the opportunity to represent IGC. So we > would encourage unsuccessful nominees on this occasion to put their names > forward again in the future and thank them for their offer to contribute on > this occasion. > > > > Ian Peter > On behalf of Nomcom > > PS - and as a personal note - we were only able to deliver a slate of > candidates in this short period of time because of the calibre of the > participating Nomcom members. Although the timeframe did not allow the > participation of Qasai, I must say that Jacquiline, Guru and Hempal all > displayed high level abilities to hear each other perspectives and > compromise in order to get a result. It is not easy to undertake such an > exercise in such a short time frame but the participating Nomcom members > took to the task and did a wonderful job for IGC. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Oct 29 22:41:25 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:41:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] Live streaming now from IGF Japan "preparatory" meeting - in Okinawa Message-ID: Here is the U-stream live feed in English. http://bit.ly/9LByT6 So sorry for sending this this late. A tropical cyclone (typhoon) messed the whole event and now we had to collapse 2-day meeting into 1-day. Here is the latest program. Introduction to the IGF (09:00～10:00) Triggered by the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2003, Internet Governance has been debated by the international community. We will hear reports from IGF participants about the background of the IGF, and updates from the 2010 meeting held in Lithuania in September this year. What is IGF? Markus Kummer and Adam Peake, Senior Research Fellow at GLOCOM, International University of Japan  Origins in WSIS.  Definitions of Internet governance and the Tunis agenda (and introduction of main themes).  The notion of "multistakeholder", how it is put to action in the IGF (and spread to other processes).  Evolution of IGF and emergence of national and regional meetings.  Future: UN Commission on Science & Technology for Development (CSTD), UN General Assembly and extension of the mandate. Report from IGF Lithuania Mitsuo Tanabe, Data Communication Division, MIC Panel Discussion: issues around IGF The focus of the second part could be on topics from the Vilnius IGF. Key contributors could share their views on Internet governance and the current state of play in the key themes raised during the global IGF. Paul Wilson, APNIC Director General Toru Takahashi, Vice Chair, Internet Association Japan, Masanobu Katoh, President, Intellectual Ventures Japan, Akinori Maemura, JPNIC, Toshiaki Tateishi, Executive Director, JAIPA Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo & ICANN GNSO Council member Chris Disspain, Chair, CCNSO (remote participation) Moderated by Adam Peake and Izumi Aizu, Deputy Director, Institute for HyperNetwork Society Illegal and Harmful Information and the Confidentiality of Communication (10:00～11:00) While the Internet provides many benefits and convenience to the society, it also provides harmful and illegal information, and can pose threats for young people. On the one had, the public is calling for effective measures to counter illegal and harmful information, while on the other they are also expressing concern for the potential chilling effects any restrictions may have on freedom of expression and citizens’ right to access information; both rights guaranteed by the Japanese Constitution. Discussions will examine specific issues with comprehensive overview of the present, and the way for the future. Overview - measures against illegal and harmful information in Japan Ryoji Mori, Attorney at law. Eichi Law Offices, LLC Technology to counter illegal and harmful information and our challenges Kazuo Kitamura, NTT Communications Panel Discussion Discussions will focus on the current situation regarding the distribution of illegal and harmful information over the Internet, and technical challenges and the feasibility of preventing the distribution of such information, as well as legal and social challenges. Yuzuru Nakagawa, Internet Users Association, Japan, Naoya Bessho, Yahoo! Japan Tadahisa Hamada, Japan Computer Access for Empowerment (JCAFE), Kazuhiro Kitamura, Ryoji Mori Internet Economy and Cloud Computing Services (11:00 – 12:30) Is “cloud computing” a buzzword or an opportunity that will fundamentally change how we access and use information and information services? Reports on cloud computing issues will be presented by experts from the US and Japan, followed by interactive discussion by the members of the panel. Reports from the authors of the “Internet White Paper in Japan” produced in 2009 by the American Chamber of Commerce in Japan will also be presented. Short presentations: Merging cloud computing and PC John Galligan, Director on Internet Policy, Microsoft Infrastructures for cloud computing Kevin C. Kahn, Senior Fellow, Intel Corporation, Takeo Shimojima, Vice President, NEC Biglobe Cloud computing and network and ubiquitous environment Mikihiro Nakayama, NTT Communications Panel Discussion Discussions will focus on:  The governance of cloud computing where data are globally distributed, addressing the trans-border protection of rights across different jurisdictions with differing legal frameworks.  Is the existing DNS sufficient to handle cloud computing when its architecture is developed independently from the network architecture? Are supplemental mechanisms needed for the DNS?  Will URL filtering being designed in Japan work for monitoring the flow of contents when HTML5 becomes widely deployed?  What level of performance is required for the network infrastructure to cope with the development of cloud computing? How to ensure the adequate level of communication performance while restricting the flow of information network-wide to deal with various societal issues?  Is the combination of Tablet and Cloud enough to address all the needs of consumers, and what are the drawbacks with them? John Galligan, Kevin C. Kahn, Takeo Shimojima, Mikihiro Nakayama Internet as seen from the US Report - “Internet Economy White Paper: Achieving the Full Potential of the Internet Economy in Japan”, Yoshitaka Sugihara, Chair, Internet Economy Task Force, American Chamber of Commerce in Japan (ACCJ). LUNCH (12:30 – 13:30) Critical Internet Resources (13:30～14:30) This session will focus on Critical Internet Resources and topics such as IP Address and Domain Names, essential for the use of the Internet. Participants will discuss about the IPv4 address situation with less than 5% remaining available for allocation, and the introduction of IPv6 and associated challenges. The result of global ccTLD research will be presented, as well as and latest news on the introduction of new gTLDs and Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) TLDs. Overview of CIR Governance and IP Address Issues Akinori Maemura, JPNIC Update on the Task Force on IPv4 Address Exhaustion, Japan Shoko Mikawa, NTT Communications Report from the result of global ccTLD research Keisuke Kamimura, Center for Global Communications, International Univ. of Japan Introduction of new gTLDs and Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) TLDs. Katsuhiro Ohigashi, Japan Domain Name Business Association Panel Discussion, above speakers, moderated by Akinori Maemura Guest Speech (14:30～15:30) The first multistakeholder IGF event in Japan will be held in Okinawa. Speakers in the opening session will discuss why we need this debate now in Japan, why it is being held in Okinawa, and will explore the significance and future implications of IGF Japan. Taketsune Watanabe, Chairman, Japan Internet Providers Association (JAIPA) Markus Kummer, Executive Coordinator, IGF Secretariat, Geneva Ryosuke Haraguchi, Director-General, Telecommunications Business Department, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication (MIC) Anna Gomez, Deputy Assistant Secretary, National Telecommunication and Information Agency (NTIA), USA Tetsuji Morita, From Okinawa “Introducing Okinawa” Yasuji Aramoto, Okinawa Convention & Visitors Bureau “What is Bankoku Shinryo” by Prof. Shimada Katsuya, University of Okinawa Special Session: Challenges for Local Communities and the Nation: Okinawa as a Showcase (15:30 – 16:50) Discussion of the challenges facing local communities, such as economic development through ICTs, security, capacity building, with focus on the specific reports from Okinawa. The challenges and efforts of Okinawa are pertinent to the rest of Japan. Present and Future of IT industry and society in Okinawa Kazuo Katsume, Director, Tourism and Industry Division, Government of Okinawa Prefecture Panel Discussion – The advantages of moving to Okinawa for your business development Future of cloud services from Okinawa, Akio Nii, President, Okinawa Cross Head New added values of iDC in Okinawa, Takashi Hiyane, President, Lexues Inc. Software development environment in Okinawa, Masahito Kubota, President, E-Sir Moderated by Hiroshi Nakajima, President, MM Research Institute Special Speech (16:50 – 17:20) Vision for Okinawa Special Zone for Personal Data Protection Masao Horibe, Professor Emeritus, Hitotsubashi University Conquering the Digital Divide and using the Internet (17:20 – 18:00) Report from IT Frogs and Ryukyu Aid activities Takashi Hiyane, President, Lexues Inc., Toshihiro Maeda, Ryukyu Univ. Takatake Honma, Oyako Net Kumejima, Moderated by Toshiaki Tateishi (JAIPA) The Way Forward – Internet Governance in Japan (18:00 – 18:25) As a wrap-up of the two-day meeting, all participants are invited to discuss of how our Internet governance efforts in Japan should be formulated to involve all stakeholders. A video message Jun Murai, Professor & Dean, Faculty of Environment and Information Studies, Keio University “Way forward” - discussion by all Moderated by: Adam Peake and Yoshihiro Obata, CTO/ Senior Vice President, eAccess Closing remarks Hiroya Izumi, Director, Computer Communications Division, Telecommunications Business Dept, MIC Taketsune Watanabe, Chairman, Japan Internet Providers Association (JAIPA) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 29 22:46:05 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:46:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ian, thank you and thank you to the NomCom. Your criteria: > >1. Regular contributor to IGC >2. Consultative style with IGC members >3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with CSTD >4. Knowledge of the UN system >5. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives held by >civil society > I suggested, and a couple of people I think supported, that it would not be a good idea to have current MAG members and advisors to the MAG chair as members of the CSTD working group. I think the reasons self-evident: It is not good practise to have people examining their own work. The MAG itself will be a subject of discussion. The MAG has of course been one of the main entities in shaping the IGF. Self review is not good practise. One would think interviewing current and past MAG members and advisors would be a priority, having them as members of the working group, not. It also potentially gives those who object to the IGF reason to criticize the outcomes of the working group. Just wondering if the NomCom considered this and have any opinions. Thanks, Adam >On behalf of the Nomcom, I can now announce that the following were chosen >as IGC civil society nominations to CSTD, and we would ask that the co ­ >ordinators deal with forwarding the names to CSTD in due course. Our report >follows the names (which are in no particular order). > >Anriette Esterhuysen >Parminder Singh >Michael Gurstein >Wolfgang Kleinwachter >Izumi Aizu >Katitza Rodriguez  >Marilia Maciel >William J Drake >Divina Frau-Meigs >Milton Mueller > >Should any of the chosen reps be unavailable, the NomCom can advise its >preferences for alternative candidates. Indeed a number of other candidates >figured strongly in our thinking and it is a pity we were not able to >include them all. > >REPORT > >The Nomcom was briefed on October 20, and asked to complete this task by >October 31 ­ a very tight timeframe. The members selected were Qusai >Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, Jacquiline Morris and Ian Peter. >Ian Peter was elected Chair for the purpose of this exercise. > >Our first step was to call for nominations to be clarified or added to >(original nominations were made in conjunction with the co coordinator >ballot on October 10). > >A final list of candidates was published on governance list on October 24 as >follows > >Jeremy Malcolm, Tim McGinnis , Anupam Agrawal , Rafik Dammak , Mohamed >Zahran , Cheryl Langdon-Orr , Jamil Goheer , Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Imran >Ahmed Shah , AHM Bazlur Rahman , William J. Drake, Izumi Aizu , Michael >Gurstein , Divina Frau-Meigs , Baudouin Schombe , Fearghas McKay, Hakikur >Rahman, Solomon Gizaw , Fouad Bajwa , Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare, Pascal Bekono >, Milton L. Mueller, Vittorio Bertola , Shahzad Ahmad, Katitza Rodriguez, >Julian Casasbuenas G, Hong Xue, Hanane Boujemi, Jeremy Hunsinger , Vivek >Misra, Marília Maciel , Sivasubramanian M , Carlos Watson, Parminder Jeet >Singh, Anriette Esterhuysen. > >Late nominations were also received from Anja Kovacs, Roland Perry, and >Mohamed Zahran. The applications submitted after the closing dates were also >examined by the NonCom. However, none of them could make it to the final >list. > >In addition to selecting the 10 candidates to represent the civil society >Internet Governance Caucus, the IGC Nomcom was asked to consider an informal >request to include representatives of the "technical community". >We have not done so specifically, because the request was informal and we do >not believe it is appropriate in the spirit of multi stakeholderism for our >group to try to represent the wishes of a separate stakeholder group. And >while we would point out that among the names we are forwarding are people >with long standing involvement in and knowledge of Internet technical and >governance bodies, it is not up to us to formally attempt representation for >these bodies in reponse to an informal request from some other party to do >so. We believe a direct approach by CSTD to bodies such as the NRO and ISOC >from CSTD would be more appropriate. > >Some private correspondence was undertaken with representatives of ISOC and >RIRs before arriving at this position, and we believe it is the appropriate >response for all parties concerned in the circumstances. No names were >submitted by these bodies for Nomcom consideration. > >The group defined its selection criteria for IGC representation as > >1. Regular contributor to IGC >2. Consultative style with IGC members >3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with CSTD >4. Knowledge of the UN system >5. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives held by >civil society > >The group also decided that it would consider both geographic and gender >diversity in determining its final slate from among the most supported >candidates. > >Nomcom members then scored candidates individually and each nomcom member >who participated came up with a list of 10 names. These were collated , with >the majority of candidates on our final list being initially selected by all >participating nomcom members. The Nomcom then discussed finalisation of the >slate and the merits of respective candidates, bearing in mind geographic >and gender balance as much as possible to come up with a final list. >This was a very tight timeframe. Nomcom members worked very well together >and with a great deal of agreement on how to proceed to bring this to a >successful conclusion in a tight timeframe. > >Finally, we must add that the slate of candidates available for selection >was extraordinarily good, and representative of the diverse talents within >the Internet Governance Caucus. While on this occasion, for the purposes of >CSTD representation, the Nomcom clearly wanted to ensure that some of IGC¹s >more experienced members were involved, we would like to stress that for >future tasks, such as MAG rotation, different criteria would apply and we >would like to see more people having the opportunity to represent IGC. So we >would encourage unsuccessful nominees on this occasion to put their names >forward again in the future and thank them for their offer to contribute on >this occasion. > > > >Ian Peter >On behalf of Nomcom > >PS - and as a personal note - we were only able to deliver a slate of >candidates in this short period of time because of the calibre of the >participating Nomcom members. Although the timeframe did not allow the >participation of Qasai, I must say that Jacquiline, Guru and Hempal all >displayed high level abilities to hear each other perspectives and >compromise in order to get a result. It is not easy to undertake such an >exercise in such a short time frame but the participating Nomcom members >took to the task and did a wonderful job for IGC. > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 29 23:02:34 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 14:02:34 +1100 Subject: [governance] CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Adam, We did not formally adopt a position on this suggestion. But I do know that this was considered by Nomcom members in their individual thinking on the matter and was raised as a consideration during our processes. However it was not one of our formal selection criteria. Speaking personally, I do not think that being a MAG representative of civil society would make a person less capable of independently assessing its value and impact. Indeed it might even allow me a more thorough perspective. Ian > From: Adam Peake > Reply-To: , Adam Peake > Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:46:05 +0900 > To: , Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom > > Ian, thank you and thank you to the NomCom. > > Your criteria: > >> >> 1. Regular contributor to IGC >> 2. Consultative style with IGC members >> 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with CSTD >> 4. Knowledge of the UN system >> 5. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives held by >> civil society >> > > > I suggested, and a couple of people I think > supported, that it would not be a good idea to > have current MAG members and advisors to the MAG > chair as members of the CSTD working group. I > think the reasons self-evident: It is not good > practise to have people examining their own work. > The MAG itself will be a subject of discussion. > The MAG has of course been one of the main > entities in shaping the IGF. Self review is not > good practise. > > One would think interviewing current and past MAG > members and advisors would be a priority, having > them as members of the working group, not. > > It also potentially gives those who object to the > IGF reason to criticize the outcomes of the > working group. > > Just wondering if the NomCom considered this and have any opinions. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > >> On behalf of the Nomcom, I can now announce that the following were chosen >> as IGC civil society nominations to CSTD, and we would ask that the co ­ >> ordinators deal with forwarding the names to CSTD in due course. Our report >> follows the names (which are in no particular order). >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> Parminder Singh >> Michael Gurstein >> Wolfgang Kleinwachter >> Izumi Aizu >> Katitza Rodriguez  >> Marilia Maciel >> William J Drake >> Divina Frau-Meigs >> Milton Mueller >> >> Should any of the chosen reps be unavailable, the NomCom can advise its >> preferences for alternative candidates. Indeed a number of other candidates >> figured strongly in our thinking and it is a pity we were not able to >> include them all. >> >> REPORT >> >> The Nomcom was briefed on October 20, and asked to complete this task by >> October 31 ­ a very tight timeframe. The members selected were Qusai >> Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, Jacquiline Morris and Ian Peter. >> Ian Peter was elected Chair for the purpose of this exercise. >> >> Our first step was to call for nominations to be clarified or added to >> (original nominations were made in conjunction with the co coordinator >> ballot on October 10). >> >> A final list of candidates was published on governance list on October 24 as >> follows >> >> Jeremy Malcolm, Tim McGinnis , Anupam Agrawal , Rafik Dammak , Mohamed >> Zahran , Cheryl Langdon-Orr , Jamil Goheer , Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Imran >> Ahmed Shah , AHM Bazlur Rahman , William J. Drake, Izumi Aizu , Michael >> Gurstein , Divina Frau-Meigs , Baudouin Schombe , Fearghas McKay, Hakikur >> Rahman, Solomon Gizaw , Fouad Bajwa , Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare, Pascal Bekono >> , Milton L. Mueller, Vittorio Bertola , Shahzad Ahmad, Katitza Rodriguez, >> Julian Casasbuenas G, Hong Xue, Hanane Boujemi, Jeremy Hunsinger , Vivek >> Misra, Marília Maciel , Sivasubramanian M , Carlos Watson, Parminder Jeet >> Singh, Anriette Esterhuysen. >> >> Late nominations were also received from Anja Kovacs, Roland Perry, and >> Mohamed Zahran. The applications submitted after the closing dates were also >> examined by the NonCom. However, none of them could make it to the final >> list. >> >> In addition to selecting the 10 candidates to represent the civil society >> Internet Governance Caucus, the IGC Nomcom was asked to consider an informal >> request to include representatives of the "technical community". >> We have not done so specifically, because the request was informal and we do >> not believe it is appropriate in the spirit of multi stakeholderism for our >> group to try to represent the wishes of a separate stakeholder group. And >> while we would point out that among the names we are forwarding are people >> with long standing involvement in and knowledge of Internet technical and >> governance bodies, it is not up to us to formally attempt representation for >> these bodies in reponse to an informal request from some other party to do >> so. We believe a direct approach by CSTD to bodies such as the NRO and ISOC >> from CSTD would be more appropriate. >> >> Some private correspondence was undertaken with representatives of ISOC and >> RIRs before arriving at this position, and we believe it is the appropriate >> response for all parties concerned in the circumstances. No names were >> submitted by these bodies for Nomcom consideration. >> >> The group defined its selection criteria for IGC representation as >> >> 1. Regular contributor to IGC >> 2. Consultative style with IGC members >> 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with CSTD >> 4. Knowledge of the UN system >> 5. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives held by >> civil society >> >> The group also decided that it would consider both geographic and gender >> diversity in determining its final slate from among the most supported >> candidates. >> >> Nomcom members then scored candidates individually and each nomcom member >> who participated came up with a list of 10 names. These were collated , with >> the majority of candidates on our final list being initially selected by all >> participating nomcom members. The Nomcom then discussed finalisation of the >> slate and the merits of respective candidates, bearing in mind geographic >> and gender balance as much as possible to come up with a final list. >> This was a very tight timeframe. Nomcom members worked very well together >> and with a great deal of agreement on how to proceed to bring this to a >> successful conclusion in a tight timeframe. >> >> Finally, we must add that the slate of candidates available for selection >> was extraordinarily good, and representative of the diverse talents within >> the Internet Governance Caucus. While on this occasion, for the purposes of >> CSTD representation, the Nomcom clearly wanted to ensure that some of IGC¹s >> more experienced members were involved, we would like to stress that for >> future tasks, such as MAG rotation, different criteria would apply and we >> would like to see more people having the opportunity to represent IGC. So we >> would encourage unsuccessful nominees on this occasion to put their names >> forward again in the future and thank them for their offer to contribute on >> this occasion. >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> On behalf of Nomcom >> >> PS - and as a personal note - we were only able to deliver a slate of >> candidates in this short period of time because of the calibre of the >> participating Nomcom members. Although the timeframe did not allow the >> participation of Qasai, I must say that Jacquiline, Guru and Hempal all >> displayed high level abilities to hear each other perspectives and >> compromise in order to get a result. It is not easy to undertake such an >> exercise in such a short time frame but the participating Nomcom members >> took to the task and did a wonderful job for IGC. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 29 23:25:56 2010 From: pbekono at gmail.com (Pascal Bekono) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 04:25:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear, Nomcom Congratulations for this good work you have undertaken. I appreciated the methodology and evaluation criteria (+ regional balance !) Congratulations to our elected representatives. They are experienced ! Cheers, Pascal 2010/10/30, Adam Peake : > Ian, thank you and thank you to the NomCom. > > Your criteria: > >> >>1. Regular contributor to IGC >>2. Consultative style with IGC members >>3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with CSTD >>4. Knowledge of the UN system >>5. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives held by >>civil society >> > > > I suggested, and a couple of people I think > supported, that it would not be a good idea to > have current MAG members and advisors to the MAG > chair as members of the CSTD working group. I > think the reasons self-evident: It is not good > practise to have people examining their own work. > The MAG itself will be a subject of discussion. > The MAG has of course been one of the main > entities in shaping the IGF. Self review is not > good practise. > > One would think interviewing current and past MAG > members and advisors would be a priority, having > them as members of the working group, not. > > It also potentially gives those who object to the > IGF reason to criticize the outcomes of the > working group. > > Just wondering if the NomCom considered this and have any opinions. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > >>On behalf of the Nomcom, I can now announce that the following were chosen >>as IGC civil society nominations to CSTD, and we would ask that the co ­ >>ordinators deal with forwarding the names to CSTD in due course. Our report >>follows the names (which are in no particular order). >> >>Anriette Esterhuysen >>Parminder Singh >>Michael Gurstein >>Wolfgang Kleinwachter >>Izumi Aizu >>Katitza Rodriguez >>Marilia Maciel >>William J Drake >>Divina Frau-Meigs >>Milton Mueller >> >>Should any of the chosen reps be unavailable, the NomCom can advise its >>preferences for alternative candidates. Indeed a number of other candidates >>figured strongly in our thinking and it is a pity we were not able to >>include them all. >> >>REPORT >> >>The Nomcom was briefed on October 20, and asked to complete this task by >>October 31 ­ a very tight timeframe. The members selected were Qusai >>Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, Jacquiline Morris and Ian Peter. >>Ian Peter was elected Chair for the purpose of this exercise. >> >>Our first step was to call for nominations to be clarified or added to >>(original nominations were made in conjunction with the co coordinator >>ballot on October 10). >> >>A final list of candidates was published on governance list on October 24 >> as >>follows >> >>Jeremy Malcolm, Tim McGinnis , Anupam Agrawal , Rafik Dammak , Mohamed >>Zahran , Cheryl Langdon-Orr , Jamil Goheer , Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Imran >>Ahmed Shah , AHM Bazlur Rahman , William J. Drake, Izumi Aizu , Michael >>Gurstein , Divina Frau-Meigs , Baudouin Schombe , Fearghas McKay, Hakikur >>Rahman, Solomon Gizaw , Fouad Bajwa , Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare, Pascal Bekono >>, Milton L. Mueller, Vittorio Bertola , Shahzad Ahmad, Katitza Rodriguez, >>Julian Casasbuenas G, Hong Xue, Hanane Boujemi, Jeremy Hunsinger , Vivek >>Misra, Marília Maciel , Sivasubramanian M , Carlos Watson, Parminder Jeet >>Singh, Anriette Esterhuysen. >> >>Late nominations were also received from Anja Kovacs, Roland Perry, and >>Mohamed Zahran. The applications submitted after the closing dates were >> also >>examined by the NonCom. However, none of them could make it to the final >>list. >> >>In addition to selecting the 10 candidates to represent the civil society >>Internet Governance Caucus, the IGC Nomcom was asked to consider an >> informal >>request to include representatives of the "technical community". >>We have not done so specifically, because the request was informal and we >> do >>not believe it is appropriate in the spirit of multi stakeholderism for our >>group to try to represent the wishes of a separate stakeholder group. And >>while we would point out that among the names we are forwarding are people >>with long standing involvement in and knowledge of Internet technical and >>governance bodies, it is not up to us to formally attempt representation >> for >>these bodies in reponse to an informal request from some other party to do >>so. We believe a direct approach by CSTD to bodies such as the NRO and ISOC >>from CSTD would be more appropriate. >> >>Some private correspondence was undertaken with representatives of ISOC and >>RIRs before arriving at this position, and we believe it is the appropriate >>response for all parties concerned in the circumstances. No names were >>submitted by these bodies for Nomcom consideration. >> >>The group defined its selection criteria for IGC representation as >> >>1. Regular contributor to IGC >>2. Consultative style with IGC members >>3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with CSTD >>4. Knowledge of the UN system >>5. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives held by >>civil society >> >>The group also decided that it would consider both geographic and gender >>diversity in determining its final slate from among the most supported >>candidates. >> >>Nomcom members then scored candidates individually and each nomcom member >>who participated came up with a list of 10 names. These were collated , >> with >>the majority of candidates on our final list being initially selected by >> all >>participating nomcom members. The Nomcom then discussed finalisation of the >>slate and the merits of respective candidates, bearing in mind geographic >>and gender balance as much as possible to come up with a final list. >>This was a very tight timeframe. Nomcom members worked very well together >>and with a great deal of agreement on how to proceed to bring this to a >>successful conclusion in a tight timeframe. >> >>Finally, we must add that the slate of candidates available for selection >>was extraordinarily good, and representative of the diverse talents within >>the Internet Governance Caucus. While on this occasion, for the purposes of >>CSTD representation, the Nomcom clearly wanted to ensure that some of IGC¹s >>more experienced members were involved, we would like to stress that for >>future tasks, such as MAG rotation, different criteria would apply and we >>would like to see more people having the opportunity to represent IGC. So >> we >>would encourage unsuccessful nominees on this occasion to put their names >>forward again in the future and thank them for their offer to contribute on >>this occasion. >> >> >> >>Ian Peter >>On behalf of Nomcom >> >>PS - and as a personal note - we were only able to deliver a slate of >>candidates in this short period of time because of the calibre of the >>participating Nomcom members. Although the timeframe did not allow the >>participation of Qasai, I must say that Jacquiline, Guru and Hempal all >>displayed high level abilities to hear each other perspectives and >>compromise in order to get a result. It is not easy to undertake such an >>exercise in such a short time frame but the participating Nomcom members >>took to the task and did a wonderful job for IGC. >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 30 03:15:57 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 09:15:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Congratulations and thanks much to the nomcom. With regard to Adam's concerns, at this point perhaps the best option is to be transparent and present the nominations with a sentence or two identifying each that would include mention of MAG membership where relevant. Then the WG Chair and CSTD Chair and Vice Chairs can make whatever determination they see fit in a fully informed manner without any risk of post hoc concerns being expressed about the IGC's process… Best, Bill On Oct 30, 2010, at 5:02 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Adam, > > We did not formally adopt a position on this suggestion. But I do know that > this was considered by Nomcom members in their individual thinking on the > matter and was raised as a consideration during our processes. However it > was not one of our formal selection criteria. > > Speaking personally, I do not think that being a MAG representative of civil > society would make a person less capable of independently assessing its > value and impact. Indeed it might even allow me a more thorough perspective. > > Ian > > >> From: Adam Peake >> Reply-To: , Adam Peake >> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:46:05 +0900 >> To: , Ian Peter >> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom >> >> Ian, thank you and thank you to the NomCom. >> >> Your criteria: >> >>> >>> 1. Regular contributor to IGC >>> 2. Consultative style with IGC members >>> 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with CSTD >>> 4. Knowledge of the UN system >>> 5. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives held by >>> civil society >>> >> >> >> I suggested, and a couple of people I think >> supported, that it would not be a good idea to >> have current MAG members and advisors to the MAG >> chair as members of the CSTD working group. I >> think the reasons self-evident: It is not good >> practise to have people examining their own work. >> The MAG itself will be a subject of discussion. >> The MAG has of course been one of the main >> entities in shaping the IGF. Self review is not >> good practise. >> >> One would think interviewing current and past MAG >> members and advisors would be a priority, having >> them as members of the working group, not. >> >> It also potentially gives those who object to the >> IGF reason to criticize the outcomes of the >> working group. >> >> Just wondering if the NomCom considered this and have any opinions. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> On behalf of the Nomcom, I can now announce that the following were chosen >>> as IGC civil society nominations to CSTD, and we would ask that the co – >>> ordinators deal with forwarding the names to CSTD in due course. Our report >>> follows the names (which are in no particular order). >>> >>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>> Parminder Singh >>> Michael Gurstein >>> Wolfgang Kleinwachter >>> Izumi Aizu >>> Katitza Rodriguez >>> Marilia Maciel >>> William J Drake >>> Divina Frau-Meigs >>> Milton Mueller >>> >>> Should any of the chosen reps be unavailable, the NomCom can advise its >>> preferences for alternative candidates. Indeed a number of other candidates >>> figured strongly in our thinking and it is a pity we were not able to >>> include them all. >>> >>> REPORT >>> >>> The Nomcom was briefed on October 20, and asked to complete this task by >>> October 31 – a very tight timeframe. The members selected were Qusai >>> Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, Jacquiline Morris and Ian Peter. >>> Ian Peter was elected Chair for the purpose of this exercise. >>> >>> Our first step was to call for nominations to be clarified or added to >>> (original nominations were made in conjunction with the co coordinator >>> ballot on October 10). >>> >>> A final list of candidates was published on governance list on October 24 as >>> follows >>> >>> Jeremy Malcolm, Tim McGinnis , Anupam Agrawal , Rafik Dammak , Mohamed >>> Zahran , Cheryl Langdon-Orr , Jamil Goheer , Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Imran >>> Ahmed Shah , AHM Bazlur Rahman , William J. Drake, Izumi Aizu , Michael >>> Gurstein , Divina Frau-Meigs , Baudouin Schombe , Fearghas McKay, Hakikur >>> Rahman, Solomon Gizaw , Fouad Bajwa , Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare, Pascal Bekono >>> , Milton L. Mueller, Vittorio Bertola , Shahzad Ahmad, Katitza Rodriguez, >>> Julian Casasbuenas G, Hong Xue, Hanane Boujemi, Jeremy Hunsinger , Vivek >>> Misra, Marília Maciel , Sivasubramanian M , Carlos Watson, Parminder Jeet >>> Singh, Anriette Esterhuysen. >>> >>> Late nominations were also received from Anja Kovacs, Roland Perry, and >>> Mohamed Zahran. The applications submitted after the closing dates were also >>> examined by the NonCom. However, none of them could make it to the final >>> list. >>> >>> In addition to selecting the 10 candidates to represent the civil society >>> Internet Governance Caucus, the IGC Nomcom was asked to consider an informal >>> request to include representatives of the "technical community". >>> We have not done so specifically, because the request was informal and we do >>> not believe it is appropriate in the spirit of multi stakeholderism for our >>> group to try to represent the wishes of a separate stakeholder group. And >>> while we would point out that among the names we are forwarding are people >>> with long standing involvement in and knowledge of Internet technical and >>> governance bodies, it is not up to us to formally attempt representation for >>> these bodies in reponse to an informal request from some other party to do >>> so. We believe a direct approach by CSTD to bodies such as the NRO and ISOC >>> from CSTD would be more appropriate. >>> >>> Some private correspondence was undertaken with representatives of ISOC and >>> RIRs before arriving at this position, and we believe it is the appropriate >>> response for all parties concerned in the circumstances. No names were >>> submitted by these bodies for Nomcom consideration. >>> >>> The group defined its selection criteria for IGC representation as >>> >>> 1. Regular contributor to IGC >>> 2. Consultative style with IGC members >>> 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with CSTD >>> 4. Knowledge of the UN system >>> 5. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives held by >>> civil society >>> >>> The group also decided that it would consider both geographic and gender >>> diversity in determining its final slate from among the most supported >>> candidates. >>> >>> Nomcom members then scored candidates individually and each nomcom member >>> who participated came up with a list of 10 names. These were collated , with >>> the majority of candidates on our final list being initially selected by all >>> participating nomcom members. The Nomcom then discussed finalisation of the >>> slate and the merits of respective candidates, bearing in mind geographic >>> and gender balance as much as possible to come up with a final list. >>> This was a very tight timeframe. Nomcom members worked very well together >>> and with a great deal of agreement on how to proceed to bring this to a >>> successful conclusion in a tight timeframe. >>> >>> Finally, we must add that the slate of candidates available for selection >>> was extraordinarily good, and representative of the diverse talents within >>> the Internet Governance Caucus. While on this occasion, for the purposes of >>> CSTD representation, the Nomcom clearly wanted to ensure that some of IGC’s >>> more experienced members were involved, we would like to stress that for >>> future tasks, such as MAG rotation, different criteria would apply and we >>> would like to see more people having the opportunity to represent IGC. So we >>> would encourage unsuccessful nominees on this occasion to put their names >>> forward again in the future and thank them for their offer to contribute on >>> this occasion. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> On behalf of Nomcom >>> >>> PS - and as a personal note - we were only able to deliver a slate of >>> candidates in this short period of time because of the calibre of the >>> participating Nomcom members. Although the timeframe did not allow the >>> participation of Qasai, I must say that Jacquiline, Guru and Hempal all >>> displayed high level abilities to hear each other perspectives and >>> compromise in order to get a result. It is not easy to undertake such an >>> exercise in such a short time frame but the participating Nomcom members >>> took to the task and did a wonderful job for IGC. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 06:04:31 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 03:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom Message-ID: <850312.41372.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Ian Congratulation to the selected representatives of IGC for CSTD. With reference to following discussion, may I ask some questions: 1. Although these nominated members of IGC are independent to give their opinion about IGF to CSTD but what will be the IGC mandate for them? 2. Will they obtain consensus of IGC members before submitting their reports to CSTD? 3. if some one know the reason of for the review, they should understand the requirement as well. 4. What are the probability to give only one statement at the end of the day that "Everything in going excellent, IGF is working as per charter of the UN". Regads Imran On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:02 PKT Ian Peter wrote: >Hi Adam, > >We did not formally adopt a position on this suggestion. But I do know that >this was considered by Nomcom members in their individual thinking on the >matter and was raised as a consideration during our processes. However it >was not one of our formal selection criteria. > >Speaking personally, I do not think that being a MAG representative of civil >society would make a person less capable of independently assessing its >value and impact. Indeed it might even allow me a more thorough perspective. > >Ian > > >> From: Adam Peake >> Reply-To: , Adam Peake >> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:46:05 +0900 >> To: , Ian Peter >> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom >> >> Ian, thank you and thank you to the NomCom. >> >> Your criteria: >> >>> >>> 1. Regular contributor to IGC >>> 2. Consultative style with IGC members >>> 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with CSTD >>> 4. Knowledge of the UN system >>> 5. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives held by >>> civil society >>> >> >> >> I suggested, and a couple of people I think >> supported, that it would not be a good idea to >> have current MAG members and advisors to the MAG >> chair as members of the CSTD working group. I >> think the reasons self-evident: It is not good >> practise to have people examining their own work. >> The MAG itself will be a subject of discussion. >> The MAG has of course been one of the main >> entities in shaping the IGF. Self review is not >> good practise. >> >> One would think interviewing current and past MAG >> members and advisors would be a priority, having >> them as members of the working group, not. >> >> It also potentially gives those who object to the >> IGF reason to criticize the outcomes of the >> working group. >> >> Just wondering if the NomCom considered this and have any opinions. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> On behalf of the Nomcom, I can now announce that the following were chosen >>> as IGC civil society nominations to CSTD, and we would ask that the co ­ >>> ordinators deal with forwarding the names to CSTD in due course. Our report >>> follows the names (which are in no particular order). >>> >>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>> Parminder Singh >>> Michael Gurstein >>> Wolfgang Kleinwachter >>> Izumi Aizu >>> Katitza Rodriguez  >>> Marilia Maciel >>> William J Drake >>> Divina Frau-Meigs >>> Milton Mueller >>> >>> Should any of the chosen reps be unavailable, the NomCom can advise its >>> preferences for alternative candidates. Indeed a number of other candidates >>> figured strongly in our thinking and it is a pity we were not able to >>> include them all. >>> >>> REPORT >>> >>> The Nomcom was briefed on October 20, and asked to complete this task by >>> October 31 ­ a very tight timeframe. The members selected were Qusai >>> Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, Jacquiline Morris and Ian Peter. >>> Ian Peter was elected Chair for the purpose of this exercise. >>> >>> Our first step was to call for nominations to be clarified or added to >>> (original nominations were made in conjunction with the co coordinator >>> ballot on October 10). >>> >>> A final list of candidates was published on governance list on October 24 as >>> follows >>> >>> Jeremy Malcolm, Tim McGinnis , Anupam Agrawal , Rafik Dammak , Mohamed >>> Zahran , Cheryl Langdon-Orr , Jamil Goheer , Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Imran >>> Ahmed Shah , AHM Bazlur Rahman , William J. Drake, Izumi Aizu , Michael >>> Gurstein , Divina Frau-Meigs , Baudouin Schombe , Fearghas McKay, Hakikur >>> Rahman, Solomon Gizaw , Fouad Bajwa , Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare, Pascal Bekono >>> , Milton L. Mueller, Vittorio Bertola , Shahzad Ahmad, Katitza Rodriguez, >>> Julian Casasbuenas G, Hong Xue, Hanane Boujemi, Jeremy Hunsinger , Vivek >>> Misra, Marília Maciel , Sivasubramanian M , Carlos Watson, Parminder Jeet >>> Singh, Anriette Esterhuysen. >>> >>> Late nominations were also received from Anja Kovacs, Roland Perry, and >>> Mohamed Zahran. The applications submitted after the closing dates were also >>> examined by the NonCom. However, none of them could make it to the final >>> list. >>> >>> In addition to selecting the 10 candidates to represent the civil society >>> Internet Governance Caucus, the IGC Nomcom was asked to consider an informal >>> request to include representatives of the "technical community". >>> We have not done so specifically, because the request was informal and we do >>> not believe it is appropriate in the spirit of multi stakeholderism for our >>> group to try to represent the wishes of a separate stakeholder group. And >>> while we would point out that among the names we are forwarding are people >>> with long standing involvement in and knowledge of Internet technical and >>> governance bodies, it is not up to us to formally attempt representation for >>> these bodies in reponse to an informal request from some other party to do >>> so. We believe a direct approach by CSTD to bodies such as the NRO and ISOC >>> from CSTD would be more appropriate. >>> >>> Some private correspondence was undertaken with representatives of ISOC and >>> RIRs before arriving at this position, and we believe it is the appropriate >>> response for all parties concerned in the circumstances. No names were >>> submitted by these bodies for Nomcom consideration. >>> >>> The group defined its selection criteria for IGC representation as >>> >>> 1. Regular contributor to IGC >>> 2. Consultative style with IGC members >>> 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with CSTD >>> 4. Knowledge of the UN system >>> 5. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives held by >>> civil society >>> >>> The group also decided that it would consider both geographic and gender >>> diversity in determining its final slate from among the most supported >>> candidates. >>> >>> Nomcom members then scored candidates individually and each nomcom member >>> who participated came up with a list of 10 names. These were collated , with >>> the majority of candidates on our final list being initially selected by all >>> participating nomcom members. The Nomcom then discussed finalisation of the >>> slate and the merits of respective candidates, bearing in mind geographic >>> and gender balance as much as possible to come up with a final list. >>> This was a very tight timeframe. Nomcom members worked very well together >>> and with a great deal of agreement on how to proceed to bring this to a >>> successful conclusion in a tight timeframe. >>> >>> Finally, we must add that the slate of candidates available for selection >>> was extraordinarily good, and representative of the diverse talents within >>> the Internet Governance Caucus. While on this occasion, for the purposes of >>> CSTD representation, the Nomcom clearly wanted to ensure that some of IGC¹s >>> more experienced members were involved, we would like to stress that for >>> future tasks, such as MAG rotation, different criteria would apply and we >>> would like to see more people having the opportunity to represent IGC. So we >>> would encourage unsuccessful nominees on this occasion to put their names >>> forward again in the future and thank them for their offer to contribute on >>> this occasion. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> On behalf of Nomcom >>> >>> PS - and as a personal note - we were only able to deliver a slate of >>> candidates in this short period of time because of the calibre of the >>> participating Nomcom members. Although the timeframe did not allow the >>> participation of Qasai, I must say that Jacquiline, Guru and Hempal all >>> displayed high level abilities to hear each other perspectives and >>> compromise in order to get a result. It is not easy to undertake such an >>> exercise in such a short time frame but the participating Nomcom members >>> took to the task and did a wonderful job for IGC. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 06:07:50 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 03:07:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom Message-ID: <419467.62607.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Ian Congratulation to the selected representatives of IGC for CSTD. With reference to following discussion, may I ask some questions: 1. Although these nominated members of IGC are independent to give their opinion about IGF to CSTD but what will be the IGC mandate for them? 2. Will they obtain consensus of IGC members before submitting their reports to CSTD? 3. if some one know the reason of for the review, they should understand the requirement as well. 4. What are the probability to give only one statement at the end of the day that "Everything in going excellent, IGF is working as per charter of the UN". Regads Imran On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:02 PKT Ian Peter wrote: >Hi Adam, > >We did not formally adopt a position on this suggestion. But I do know that >this was considered by Nomcom members in their individual thinking on the >matter and was raised as a consideration during our processes. However it >was not one of our formal selection criteria. > >Speaking personally, I do not think that being a MAG representative of civil >society would make a person less capable of independently assessing its >value and impact. Indeed it might even allow me a more thorough perspective. > >Ian > > >> From: Adam Peake >> Reply-To: , Adam Peake >> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:46:05 +0900 >> To: , Ian Peter >> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom >> >> Ian, thank you and thank you to the NomCom. >> >> Your criteria: >> >>> >>> 1. Regular contributor to IGC >>> 2. Consultative style with IGC members >>> 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with CSTD >>> 4. Knowledge of the UN system >>> 5. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives held by >>> civil society >>> >> >> >> I suggested, and a couple of people I think >> supported, that it would not be a good idea to >> have current MAG members and advisors to the MAG >> chair as members of the CSTD working group. I >> think the reasons self-evident: It is not good >> practise to have people examining their own work. >> The MAG itself will be a subject of discussion. >> The MAG has of course been one of the main >> entities in shaping the IGF. Self review is not >> good practise. >> >> One would think interviewing current and past MAG >> members and advisors would be a priority, having >> them as members of the working group, not. >> >> It also potentially gives those who object to the >> IGF reason to criticize the outcomes of the >> working group. >> >> Just wondering if the NomCom considered this and have any opinions. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> On behalf of the Nomcom, I can now announce that the following were chosen >>> as IGC civil society nominations to CSTD, and we would ask that the co ­ >>> ordinators deal with forwarding the names to CSTD in due course. Our report >>> follows the names (which are in no particular order). >>> >>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>> Parminder Singh >>> Michael Gurstein >>> Wolfgang Kleinwachter >>> Izumi Aizu >>> Katitza Rodriguez  >>> Marilia Maciel >>> William J Drake >>> Divina Frau-Meigs >>> Milton Mueller >>> >>> Should any of the chosen reps be unavailable, the NomCom can advise its >>> preferences for alternative candidates. Indeed a number of other candidates >>> figured strongly in our thinking and it is a pity we were not able to >>> include them all. >>> >>> REPORT >>> >>> The Nomcom was briefed on October 20, and asked to complete this task by >>> October 31 ­ a very tight timeframe. The members selected were Qusai >>> Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, Jacquiline Morris and Ian Peter. >>> Ian Peter was elected Chair for the purpose of this exercise. >>> >>> Our first step was to call for nominations to be clarified or added to >>> (original nominations were made in conjunction with the co coordinator >>> ballot on October 10). >>> >>> A final list of candidates was published on governance list on October 24 as >>> follows >>> >>> Jeremy Malcolm, Tim McGinnis , Anupam Agrawal , Rafik Dammak , Mohamed >>> Zahran , Cheryl Langdon-Orr , Jamil Goheer , Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Imran >>> Ahmed Shah , AHM Bazlur Rahman , William J. Drake, Izumi Aizu , Michael >>> Gurstein , Divina Frau-Meigs , Baudouin Schombe , Fearghas McKay, Hakikur >>> Rahman, Solomon Gizaw , Fouad Bajwa , Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare, Pascal Bekono >>> , Milton L. Mueller, Vittorio Bertola , Shahzad Ahmad, Katitza Rodriguez, >>> Julian Casasbuenas G, Hong Xue, Hanane Boujemi, Jeremy Hunsinger , Vivek >>> Misra, Marília Maciel , Sivasubramanian M , Carlos Watson, Parminder Jeet >>> Singh, Anriette Esterhuysen. >>> >>> Late nominations were also received from Anja Kovacs, Roland Perry, and >>> Mohamed Zahran. The applications submitted after the closing dates were also >>> examined by the NonCom. However, none of them could make it to the final >>> list. >>> >>> In addition to selecting the 10 candidates to represent the civil society >>> Internet Governance Caucus, the IGC Nomcom was asked to consider an informal >>> request to include representatives of the "technical community". >>> We have not done so specifically, because the request was informal and we do >>> not believe it is appropriate in the spirit of multi stakeholderism for our >>> group to try to represent the wishes of a separate stakeholder group. And >>> while we would point out that among the names we are forwarding are people >>> with long standing involvement in and knowledge of Internet technical and >>> governance bodies, it is not up to us to formally attempt representation for >>> these bodies in reponse to an informal request from some other party to do >>> so. We believe a direct approach by CSTD to bodies such as the NRO and ISOC >>> from CSTD would be more appropriate. >>> >>> Some private correspondence was undertaken with representatives of ISOC and >>> RIRs before arriving at this position, and we believe it is the appropriate >>> response for all parties concerned in the circumstances. No names were >>> submitted by these bodies for Nomcom consideration. >>> >>> The group defined its selection criteria for IGC representation as >>> >>> 1. Regular contributor to IGC >>> 2. Consultative style with IGC members >>> 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with CSTD >>> 4. Knowledge of the UN system >>> 5. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives held by >>> civil society >>> >>> The group also decided that it would consider both geographic and gender >>> diversity in determining its final slate from among the most supported >>> candidates. >>> >>> Nomcom members then scored candidates individually and each nomcom member >>> who participated came up with a list of 10 names. These were collated , with >>> the majority of candidates on our final list being initially selected by all >>> participating nomcom members. The Nomcom then discussed finalisation of the >>> slate and the merits of respective candidates, bearing in mind geographic >>> and gender balance as much as possible to come up with a final list. >>> This was a very tight timeframe. Nomcom members worked very well together >>> and with a great deal of agreement on how to proceed to bring this to a >>> successful conclusion in a tight timeframe. >>> >>> Finally, we must add that the slate of candidates available for selection >>> was extraordinarily good, and representative of the diverse talents within >>> the Internet Governance Caucus. While on this occasion, for the purposes of >>> CSTD representation, the Nomcom clearly wanted to ensure that some of IGC¹s >>> more experienced members were involved, we would like to stress that for >>> future tasks, such as MAG rotation, different criteria would apply and we >>> would like to see more people having the opportunity to represent IGC. So we >>> would encourage unsuccessful nominees on this occasion to put their names >>> forward again in the future and thank them for their offer to contribute on >>> this occasion. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> On behalf of Nomcom >>> >>> PS - and as a personal note - we were only able to deliver a slate of >>> candidates in this short period of time because of the calibre of the >>> participating Nomcom members. Although the timeframe did not allow the >>> participation of Qasai, I must say that Jacquiline, Guru and Hempal all >>> displayed high level abilities to hear each other perspectives and >>> compromise in order to get a result. It is not easy to undertake such an >>> exercise in such a short time frame but the participating Nomcom members >>> took to the task and did a wonderful job for IGC. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 30 09:18:19 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 18:18:19 +0500 Subject: [governance] CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Ian and members of the Nomcom! Congratulations on putting together a very strong list of nominations for the CSTD WG. The most experienced and vocal names are also there that strengthens our opportunity to intervene and deliberate on behalf of IGC very strong and I hope our strongest members make it to the working group final list! The methodology and selection criteria were well set and managed. Best of luck to all those that will be selected beforehand and looking forward to meeting most of you in Geneva later next month before the CSTD meeting. Best Fouad Bajwa On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > On behalf of the Nomcom, I can now announce that the following were chosen > as  IGC civil society nominations to CSTD, and we would ask that the co ­ > ordinators deal with forwarding the names to CSTD in due course. Our report > follows the names (which are in no particular order). > > Anriette Esterhuysen > Parminder Singh > Michael Gurstein > Wolfgang Kleinwachter > Izumi Aizu > Katitza Rodriguez > Marilia Maciel > William J Drake > Divina Frau-Meigs > Milton Mueller > > Should any of the chosen reps be unavailable, the NomCom can advise its > preferences for alternative candidates. Indeed a number of other candidates > figured strongly in our thinking and it is a pity we were not able to > include them all. > > REPORT > > The Nomcom was briefed  on October 20, and asked to complete this task by > October 31 ­ a very tight timeframe. The members selected were Qusai > Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, Jacquiline Morris  and Ian Peter. > Ian Peter was  elected Chair for the purpose of this exercise. > > Our first step was to call for nominations to be clarified or added to > (original nominations were made in conjunction with the co coordinator > ballot on October 10). > > A final list of candidates was published on governance list on October 24 as > follows > > Jeremy Malcolm, Tim McGinnis , Anupam Agrawal , Rafik Dammak , Mohamed > Zahran , Cheryl Langdon-Orr , Jamil Goheer , Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Imran > Ahmed Shah , AHM Bazlur Rahman , William J. Drake, Izumi Aizu , Michael > Gurstein , Divina Frau-Meigs , Baudouin Schombe , Fearghas McKay, Hakikur > Rahman, Solomon Gizaw , Fouad Bajwa , Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare, Pascal Bekono > , Milton L. Mueller, Vittorio Bertola , Shahzad Ahmad, Katitza Rodriguez, > Julian Casasbuenas G, Hong Xue, Hanane Boujemi, Jeremy Hunsinger , Vivek > Misra, Marília Maciel , Sivasubramanian M , Carlos Watson, Parminder Jeet > Singh, Anriette Esterhuysen. > > Late nominations were also received from Anja Kovacs, Roland Perry, and > Mohamed Zahran. The applications submitted after the closing dates were also > examined by the NonCom. However, none of them could make it to the final > list. > > In addition to selecting the 10 candidates to represent the civil society > Internet Governance Caucus, the IGC Nomcom was asked to consider an informal > request to include representatives of the "technical community". > We have not done so specifically, because the request was informal and we do > not believe it is appropriate in the spirit of multi stakeholderism for our > group to try to represent the wishes of a separate stakeholder group. And > while we would point out that among the names we are forwarding are people > with long standing involvement in and knowledge of Internet technical and > governance bodies, it is not up to us to formally attempt representation for > these bodies in reponse to an informal request from some other party to do > so. We believe a direct approach by CSTD to bodies such as the NRO and ISOC > from CSTD would be more appropriate. > > Some private correspondence was undertaken with representatives of ISOC and > RIRs before arriving at this position, and we believe it is the appropriate > response for all parties concerned in the circumstances. No names were > submitted by these bodies for Nomcom consideration. > > The  group defined its selection criteria for IGC representation as > > 1. Regular contributor to IGC > 2. Consultative style with IGC members > 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with CSTD > 4. Knowledge of the UN system > 5. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives held by > civil society > > The group also decided that it would consider both geographic and gender > diversity in determining its final slate from among the most supported > candidates. > > Nomcom members then scored candidates individually and each nomcom member > who participated came up with a list of 10 names. These were collated , with > the majority of candidates on our final list being initially selected by all > participating nomcom members. The Nomcom then discussed finalisation of the > slate and the merits of respective candidates, bearing in mind geographic > and gender balance as much as possible to come up with a final list. > This was a very tight timeframe. Nomcom members worked very well together > and with a great deal of agreement on how to proceed to bring this to a > successful conclusion in a tight timeframe. > > Finally, we must add that the slate of candidates available for selection > was extraordinarily good, and representative of the diverse talents within > the Internet Governance Caucus. While on this occasion, for the purposes of > CSTD representation, the Nomcom clearly wanted to ensure that some of IGC¹s > more experienced members were involved, we would like to stress that for > future tasks, such as MAG rotation, different criteria would apply and we > would like to see more people having the opportunity to represent IGC. So we > would encourage unsuccessful nominees on this occasion to put their names > forward again in the future and thank them for their offer to contribute on > this occasion. > > > > Ian Peter > On behalf of Nomcom > > PS - and as a personal note - we were only able to deliver a slate of > candidates in this short period of time because of the calibre of the > participating Nomcom members. Although the timeframe did not allow the > participation of Qasai, I must say that Jacquiline, Guru and Hempal all > displayed high level abilities to hear each other perspectives and > compromise in order to get a result. It is not easy to undertake such an > exercise in such a short time frame but the participating Nomcom members > took to the task and did a wonderful job for IGC. > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Oct 30 15:35:51 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 06:35:51 +1100 Subject: [governance] CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom In-Reply-To: <850312.41372.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Imran, Good questions! But these are for the IGC as a whole, not the Nomcom to answer. Ian > From: Imran Ahmed Shah > Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 03:04:31 -0700 (PDT) > To: , Ian Peter , Adam > Peake > Cc: > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom > > Dear Ian > Congratulation to the selected representatives of IGC for CSTD. > > With reference to following discussion, > may I ask some questions: > 1. Although these nominated members of IGC are independent to give their > opinion about IGF > to CSTD but what will be the IGC mandate for them? > 2. Will they obtain consensus of IGC members before submitting their reports > to CSTD? > 3. if some one know the reason of for the review, they should understand the > requirement as well. > 4. What are the probability to give only one statement at the end of the day > that "Everything in going excellent, IGF is working as per charter of the UN". > > Regads > > Imran > > On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:02 PKT Ian Peter wrote: > >> Hi Adam, >> >> We did not formally adopt a position on this suggestion. But I do know that >> this was considered by Nomcom members in their individual thinking on the >> matter and was raised as a consideration during our processes. However it >> was not one of our formal selection criteria. >> >> Speaking personally, I do not think that being a MAG representative of civil >> society would make a person less capable of independently assessing its >> value and impact. Indeed it might even allow me a more thorough perspective. >> >> Ian >> >> >>> From: Adam Peake >>> Reply-To: , Adam Peake >>> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:46:05 +0900 >>> To: , Ian Peter >>> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom >>> >>> Ian, thank you and thank you to the NomCom. >>> >>> Your criteria: >>> >>>> >>>> 1. Regular contributor to IGC >>>> 2. Consultative style with IGC members >>>> 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with CSTD >>>> 4. Knowledge of the UN system >>>> 5. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives held by >>>> civil society >>>> >>> >>> >>> I suggested, and a couple of people I think >>> supported, that it would not be a good idea to >>> have current MAG members and advisors to the MAG >>> chair as members of the CSTD working group. I >>> think the reasons self-evident: It is not good >>> practise to have people examining their own work. >>> The MAG itself will be a subject of discussion. >>> The MAG has of course been one of the main >>> entities in shaping the IGF. Self review is not >>> good practise. >>> >>> One would think interviewing current and past MAG >>> members and advisors would be a priority, having >>> them as members of the working group, not. >>> >>> It also potentially gives those who object to the >>> IGF reason to criticize the outcomes of the >>> working group. >>> >>> Just wondering if the NomCom considered this and have any opinions. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>>> On behalf of the Nomcom, I can now announce that the following were chosen >>>> as IGC civil society nominations to CSTD, and we would ask that the co ­ >>>> ordinators deal with forwarding the names to CSTD in due course. Our report >>>> follows the names (which are in no particular order). >>>> >>>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>>> Parminder Singh >>>> Michael Gurstein >>>> Wolfgang Kleinwachter >>>> Izumi Aizu >>>> Katitza Rodriguez  >>>> Marilia Maciel >>>> William J Drake >>>> Divina Frau-Meigs >>>> Milton Mueller >>>> >>>> Should any of the chosen reps be unavailable, the NomCom can advise its >>>> preferences for alternative candidates. Indeed a number of other candidates >>>> figured strongly in our thinking and it is a pity we were not able to >>>> include them all. >>>> >>>> REPORT >>>> >>>> The Nomcom was briefed on October 20, and asked to complete this task by >>>> October 31 ­ a very tight timeframe. The members selected were Qusai >>>> Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, Jacquiline Morris and Ian Peter. >>>> Ian Peter was elected Chair for the purpose of this exercise. >>>> >>>> Our first step was to call for nominations to be clarified or added to >>>> (original nominations were made in conjunction with the co coordinator >>>> ballot on October 10). >>>> >>>> A final list of candidates was published on governance list on October 24 >>>> as >>>> follows >>>> >>>> Jeremy Malcolm, Tim McGinnis , Anupam Agrawal , Rafik Dammak , Mohamed >>>> Zahran , Cheryl Langdon-Orr , Jamil Goheer , Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Imran >>>> Ahmed Shah , AHM Bazlur Rahman , William J. Drake, Izumi Aizu , Michael >>>> Gurstein , Divina Frau-Meigs , Baudouin Schombe , Fearghas McKay, Hakikur >>>> Rahman, Solomon Gizaw , Fouad Bajwa , Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare, Pascal Bekono >>>> , Milton L. Mueller, Vittorio Bertola , Shahzad Ahmad, Katitza Rodriguez, >>>> Julian Casasbuenas G, Hong Xue, Hanane Boujemi, Jeremy Hunsinger , Vivek >>>> Misra, Marília Maciel , Sivasubramanian M , Carlos Watson, Parminder Jeet >>>> Singh, Anriette Esterhuysen. >>>> >>>> Late nominations were also received from Anja Kovacs, Roland Perry, and >>>> Mohamed Zahran. The applications submitted after the closing dates were >>>> also >>>> examined by the NonCom. However, none of them could make it to the final >>>> list. >>>> >>>> In addition to selecting the 10 candidates to represent the civil society >>>> Internet Governance Caucus, the IGC Nomcom was asked to consider an >>>> informal >>>> request to include representatives of the "technical community". >>>> We have not done so specifically, because the request was informal and we >>>> do >>>> not believe it is appropriate in the spirit of multi stakeholderism for our >>>> group to try to represent the wishes of a separate stakeholder group. And >>>> while we would point out that among the names we are forwarding are people >>>> with long standing involvement in and knowledge of Internet technical and >>>> governance bodies, it is not up to us to formally attempt representation >>>> for >>>> these bodies in reponse to an informal request from some other party to do >>>> so. We believe a direct approach by CSTD to bodies such as the NRO and ISOC >>>> from CSTD would be more appropriate. >>>> >>>> Some private correspondence was undertaken with representatives of ISOC and >>>> RIRs before arriving at this position, and we believe it is the appropriate >>>> response for all parties concerned in the circumstances. No names were >>>> submitted by these bodies for Nomcom consideration. >>>> >>>> The group defined its selection criteria for IGC representation as >>>> >>>> 1. Regular contributor to IGC >>>> 2. Consultative style with IGC members >>>> 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with CSTD >>>> 4. Knowledge of the UN system >>>> 5. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives held by >>>> civil society >>>> >>>> The group also decided that it would consider both geographic and gender >>>> diversity in determining its final slate from among the most supported >>>> candidates. >>>> >>>> Nomcom members then scored candidates individually and each nomcom member >>>> who participated came up with a list of 10 names. These were collated , >>>> with >>>> the majority of candidates on our final list being initially selected by >>>> all >>>> participating nomcom members. The Nomcom then discussed finalisation of the >>>> slate and the merits of respective candidates, bearing in mind geographic >>>> and gender balance as much as possible to come up with a final list. >>>> This was a very tight timeframe. Nomcom members worked very well together >>>> and with a great deal of agreement on how to proceed to bring this to a >>>> successful conclusion in a tight timeframe. >>>> >>>> Finally, we must add that the slate of candidates available for selection >>>> was extraordinarily good, and representative of the diverse talents within >>>> the Internet Governance Caucus. While on this occasion, for the purposes of >>>> CSTD representation, the Nomcom clearly wanted to ensure that some of IGC¹s >>>> more experienced members were involved, we would like to stress that for >>>> future tasks, such as MAG rotation, different criteria would apply and we >>>> would like to see more people having the opportunity to represent IGC. So >>>> we >>>> would encourage unsuccessful nominees on this occasion to put their names >>>> forward again in the future and thank them for their offer to contribute on >>>> this occasion. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> On behalf of Nomcom >>>> >>>> PS - and as a personal note - we were only able to deliver a slate of >>>> candidates in this short period of time because of the calibre of the >>>> participating Nomcom members. Although the timeframe did not allow the >>>> participation of Qasai, I must say that Jacquiline, Guru and Hempal all >>>> displayed high level abilities to hear each other perspectives and >>>> compromise in order to get a result. It is not easy to undertake such an >>>> exercise in such a short time frame but the participating Nomcom members >>>> took to the task and did a wonderful job for IGC. >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sat Oct 30 21:57:01 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 23:57:01 -0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom In-Reply-To: References: <850312.41372.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: First of all, big thanks should go to Ian and everybody at the Nomcom for carrying out this task in a smooth and transparent manner, in such a short period of time. Secondly, I would like to congratulate Nomcom for taking into account regional and gender balance. I do believe that the WG can be enriched by increasing its diversity. I would also like to thank you for the trust you have put in me. It is a great responsibility and I will do my very best to constructively contribute to the discussions in the WG, if I happen to get chosen to be part of it at the end of the process. Imran raised some important points on the “mandate” of IGC representatives. Although some things will certainly be discussed on the spot, probably without time for consultation, I believe it is extremely important to be based on IGC´s main positions. There are contributions and statements produced and a collation of the main ones could be interesting. It is also important to have constant communication and accountability. Just some initial thoughts. Best wishes, Marília On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Imran, > > Good questions! But these are for the IGC as a whole, not the Nomcom to > answer. > > Ian > > > > From: Imran Ahmed Shah > > Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 03:04:31 -0700 (PDT) > > To: , Ian Peter , > Adam > > Peake > > Cc: > > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom > > > > Dear Ian > > Congratulation to the selected representatives of IGC for CSTD. > > > > With reference to following discussion, > > may I ask some questions: > > 1. Although these nominated members of IGC are independent to give their > > opinion about IGF > > to CSTD but what will be the IGC mandate for them? > > 2. Will they obtain consensus of IGC members before submitting their > reports > > to CSTD? > > 3. if some one know the reason of for the review, they should understand > the > > requirement as well. > > 4. What are the probability to give only one statement at the end of the > day > > that "Everything in going excellent, IGF is working as per charter of the > UN". > > > > Regads > > > > Imran > > > > On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:02 PKT Ian Peter wrote: > > > >> Hi Adam, > >> > >> We did not formally adopt a position on this suggestion. But I do know > that > >> this was considered by Nomcom members in their individual thinking on > the > >> matter and was raised as a consideration during our processes. However > it > >> was not one of our formal selection criteria. > >> > >> Speaking personally, I do not think that being a MAG representative of > civil > >> society would make a person less capable of independently assessing its > >> value and impact. Indeed it might even allow me a more thorough > perspective. > >> > >> Ian > >> > >> > >>> From: Adam Peake > >>> Reply-To: , Adam Peake > >>> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:46:05 +0900 > >>> To: , Ian Peter > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom > >>> > >>> Ian, thank you and thank you to the NomCom. > >>> > >>> Your criteria: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> 1. Regular contributor to IGC > >>>> 2. Consultative style with IGC members > >>>> 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with CSTD > >>>> 4. Knowledge of the UN system > >>>> 5. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives held > by > >>>> civil society > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I suggested, and a couple of people I think > >>> supported, that it would not be a good idea to > >>> have current MAG members and advisors to the MAG > >>> chair as members of the CSTD working group. I > >>> think the reasons self-evident: It is not good > >>> practise to have people examining their own work. > >>> The MAG itself will be a subject of discussion. > >>> The MAG has of course been one of the main > >>> entities in shaping the IGF. Self review is not > >>> good practise. > >>> > >>> One would think interviewing current and past MAG > >>> members and advisors would be a priority, having > >>> them as members of the working group, not. > >>> > >>> It also potentially gives those who object to the > >>> IGF reason to criticize the outcomes of the > >>> working group. > >>> > >>> Just wondering if the NomCom considered this and have any opinions. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On behalf of the Nomcom, I can now announce that the following were > chosen > >>>> as IGC civil society nominations to CSTD, and we would ask that the > co ­ > >>>> ordinators deal with forwarding the names to CSTD in due course. Our > report > >>>> follows the names (which are in no particular order). > >>>> > >>>> Anriette Esterhuysen > >>>> Parminder Singh > >>>> Michael Gurstein > >>>> Wolfgang Kleinwachter > >>>> Izumi Aizu > >>>> Katitza Rodriguez > >>>> Marilia Maciel > >>>> William J Drake > >>>> Divina Frau-Meigs > >>>> Milton Mueller > >>>> > >>>> Should any of the chosen reps be unavailable, the NomCom can advise > its > >>>> preferences for alternative candidates. Indeed a number of other > candidates > >>>> figured strongly in our thinking and it is a pity we were not able to > >>>> include them all. > >>>> > >>>> REPORT > >>>> > >>>> The Nomcom was briefed on October 20, and asked to complete this task > by > >>>> October 31 ­ a very tight timeframe. The members selected were Qusai > >>>> Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, Jacquiline Morris and Ian > Peter. > >>>> Ian Peter was elected Chair for the purpose of this exercise. > >>>> > >>>> Our first step was to call for nominations to be clarified or added to > >>>> (original nominations were made in conjunction with the co coordinator > >>>> ballot on October 10). > >>>> > >>>> A final list of candidates was published on governance list on October > 24 > >>>> as > >>>> follows > >>>> > >>>> Jeremy Malcolm, Tim McGinnis , Anupam Agrawal , Rafik Dammak , Mohamed > >>>> Zahran , Cheryl Langdon-Orr , Jamil Goheer , Wolfgang Kleinwächter, > Imran > >>>> Ahmed Shah , AHM Bazlur Rahman , William J. Drake, Izumi Aizu , > Michael > >>>> Gurstein , Divina Frau-Meigs , Baudouin Schombe , Fearghas McKay, > Hakikur > >>>> Rahman, Solomon Gizaw , Fouad Bajwa , Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare, Pascal > Bekono > >>>> , Milton L. Mueller, Vittorio Bertola , Shahzad Ahmad, Katitza > Rodriguez, > >>>> Julian Casasbuenas G, Hong Xue, Hanane Boujemi, Jeremy Hunsinger , > Vivek > >>>> Misra, Marília Maciel , Sivasubramanian M , Carlos Watson, Parminder > Jeet > >>>> Singh, Anriette Esterhuysen. > >>>> > >>>> Late nominations were also received from Anja Kovacs, Roland Perry, > and > >>>> Mohamed Zahran. The applications submitted after the closing dates > were > >>>> also > >>>> examined by the NonCom. However, none of them could make it to the > final > >>>> list. > >>>> > >>>> In addition to selecting the 10 candidates to represent the civil > society > >>>> Internet Governance Caucus, the IGC Nomcom was asked to consider an > >>>> informal > >>>> request to include representatives of the "technical community". > >>>> We have not done so specifically, because the request was informal and > we > >>>> do > >>>> not believe it is appropriate in the spirit of multi stakeholderism > for our > >>>> group to try to represent the wishes of a separate stakeholder group. > And > >>>> while we would point out that among the names we are forwarding are > people > >>>> with long standing involvement in and knowledge of Internet technical > and > >>>> governance bodies, it is not up to us to formally attempt > representation > >>>> for > >>>> these bodies in reponse to an informal request from some other party > to do > >>>> so. We believe a direct approach by CSTD to bodies such as the NRO and > ISOC > >>>> from CSTD would be more appropriate. > >>>> > >>>> Some private correspondence was undertaken with representatives of > ISOC and > >>>> RIRs before arriving at this position, and we believe it is the > appropriate > >>>> response for all parties concerned in the circumstances. No names were > >>>> submitted by these bodies for Nomcom consideration. > >>>> > >>>> The group defined its selection criteria for IGC representation as > >>>> > >>>> 1. Regular contributor to IGC > >>>> 2. Consultative style with IGC members > >>>> 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with CSTD > >>>> 4. Knowledge of the UN system > >>>> 5. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives held > by > >>>> civil society > >>>> > >>>> The group also decided that it would consider both geographic and > gender > >>>> diversity in determining its final slate from among the most supported > >>>> candidates. > >>>> > >>>> Nomcom members then scored candidates individually and each nomcom > member > >>>> who participated came up with a list of 10 names. These were collated > , > >>>> with > >>>> the majority of candidates on our final list being initially selected > by > >>>> all > >>>> participating nomcom members. The Nomcom then discussed finalisation > of the > >>>> slate and the merits of respective candidates, bearing in mind > geographic > >>>> and gender balance as much as possible to come up with a final list. > >>>> This was a very tight timeframe. Nomcom members worked very well > together > >>>> and with a great deal of agreement on how to proceed to bring this to > a > >>>> successful conclusion in a tight timeframe. > >>>> > >>>> Finally, we must add that the slate of candidates available for > selection > >>>> was extraordinarily good, and representative of the diverse talents > within > >>>> the Internet Governance Caucus. While on this occasion, for the > purposes of > >>>> CSTD representation, the Nomcom clearly wanted to ensure that some of > IGC¹s > >>>> more experienced members were involved, we would like to stress that > for > >>>> future tasks, such as MAG rotation, different criteria would apply and > we > >>>> would like to see more people having the opportunity to represent IGC. > So > >>>> we > >>>> would encourage unsuccessful nominees on this occasion to put their > names > >>>> forward again in the future and thank them for their offer to > contribute on > >>>> this occasion. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Ian Peter > >>>> On behalf of Nomcom > >>>> > >>>> PS - and as a personal note - we were only able to deliver a slate of > >>>> candidates in this short period of time because of the calibre of the > >>>> participating Nomcom members. Although the timeframe did not allow the > >>>> participation of Qasai, I must say that Jacquiline, Guru and Hempal > all > >>>> displayed high level abilities to hear each other perspectives and > >>>> compromise in order to get a result. It is not easy to undertake such > an > >>>> exercise in such a short time frame but the participating Nomcom > members > >>>> took to the task and did a wonderful job for IGC. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>>> > >>>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ceo at bnnrc.net Sun Oct 31 00:11:58 2010 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 10:11:58 +0600 Subject: [governance] CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom References: <850312.41372.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3777A9C141224001BC102424353EEB19@CEO> Dear Madam/Sir, Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) Very heartiest congratulations to the selected representatives of IGC for CSTD. Anriette Esterhuysen Parminder Singh Michael Gurstein Wolfgang Kleinwachter Izumi Aizu Katitza Rodriguez Marilia Maciel William J Drake Divina Frau-Meigs Milton Mueller With best regards, Bazlu _________________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] & Head, Community Radio Academy House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Oct 31 05:35:47 2010 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 09:35:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20101031093634.A6FC9911E3@npogroups.org> Congratulations to the selected IGC nominees to the CTSD. Also agree with Adam´s view and Bill´s proposal. This process would strengthen the NomCom contrinution to the CTSD and at the same time put forward their view on MAG. Best regards, Hakikur At 07:15 30-10-2010, William Drake wrote: >Hi > >Congratulations and thanks much to the >nomcom. With regard to Adam's concerns, at this >point perhaps the best option is to be >transparent and present the nominations with a >sentence or two identifying each that would >include mention of MAG membership where >relevant. Then the WG Chair and CSTD Chair and >Vice Chairs can make whatever determination they >see fit in a fully informed manner without any >risk of post hoc concerns being expressed about the IGC's process > >Best, > >Bill > > >On Oct 30, 2010, at 5:02 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > Hi Adam, > > > > We did not formally adopt a position on this suggestion. But I do know that > > this was considered by Nomcom members in their individual thinking on the > > matter and was raised as a consideration during our processes. However it > > was not one of our formal selection criteria. > > > > Speaking personally, I do not think that > being a MAG representative of civil > > society would make a person less capable of independently assessing its > > value and impact. Indeed it might even allow > me a more thorough perspective. > > > > Ian > > > > > >> From: Adam Peake > >> Reply-To: , Adam Peake > >> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:46:05 +0900 > >> To: , Ian Peter > >> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom > >> > >> Ian, thank you and thank you to the NomCom. > >> > >> Your criteria: > >> > >>> > >>> 1. Regular contributor to IGC > >>> 2. Consultative style with IGC members > >>> 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with CSTD > >>> 4. Knowledge of the UN system > >>> 5. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives held by > >>> civil society > >>> > >> > >> > >> I suggested, and a couple of people I think > >> supported, that it would not be a good idea to > >> have current MAG members and advisors to the MAG > >> chair as members of the CSTD working group. I > >> think the reasons self-evident: It is not good > >> practise to have people examining their own work. > >> The MAG itself will be a subject of discussion. > >> The MAG has of course been one of the main > >> entities in shaping the IGF. Self review is not > >> good practise. > >> > >> One would think interviewing current and past MAG > >> members and advisors would be a priority, having > >> them as members of the working group, not. > >> > >> It also potentially gives those who object to the > >> IGF reason to criticize the outcomes of the > >> working group. > >> > >> Just wondering if the NomCom considered this and have any opinions. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > >>> On behalf of the Nomcom, I can now announce > that the following were chosen > >>> as IGC civil society nominations to CSTD, and we would ask that the co ­ > >>> ordinators deal with forwarding the names > to CSTD in due course. Our report > >>> follows the names (which are in no particular order). > >>> > >>> Anriette Esterhuysen > >>> Parminder Singh > >>> Michael Gurstein > >>> Wolfgang Kleinwachter > >>> Izumi Aizu > >>> Katitza Rodriguez > >>> Marilia Maciel > >>> William J Drake > >>> Divina Frau-Meigs > >>> Milton Mueller > >>> > >>> Should any of the chosen reps be unavailable, the NomCom can advise its > >>> preferences for alternative candidates. > Indeed a number of other candidates > >>> figured strongly in our thinking and it is a pity we were not able to > >>> include them all. > >>> > >>> REPORT > >>> > >>> The Nomcom was briefed on October 20, and asked to complete this task by > >>> October 31 ­ a very tight timeframe. The members selected were Qusai > >>> Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, > Jacquiline Morris and Ian Peter. > >>> Ian Peter was elected Chair for the purpose of this exercise. > >>> > >>> Our first step was to call for nominations to be clarified or added to > >>> (original nominations were made in conjunction with the co coordinator > >>> ballot on October 10). > >>> > >>> A final list of candidates was published on > governance list on October 24 as > >>> follows > >>> > >>> Jeremy Malcolm, Tim McGinnis , Anupam Agrawal , Rafik Dammak , Mohamed > >>> Zahran , Cheryl Langdon-Orr , Jamil Goheer , Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Imran > >>> Ahmed Shah , AHM Bazlur Rahman , William J. Drake, Izumi Aizu , Michael > >>> Gurstein , Divina Frau-Meigs , Baudouin Schombe , Fearghas McKay, Hakikur > >>> Rahman, Solomon Gizaw , Fouad Bajwa , Kwasi > Adu-Boahen Opare, Pascal Bekono > >>> , Milton L. Mueller, Vittorio Bertola , Shahzad Ahmad, Katitza Rodriguez, > >>> Julian Casasbuenas G, Hong Xue, Hanane Boujemi, Jeremy Hunsinger , Vivek > >>> Misra, Marília Maciel , Sivasubramanian M , Carlos Watson, Parminder Jeet > >>> Singh, Anriette Esterhuysen. > >>> > >>> Late nominations were also received from Anja Kovacs, Roland Perry, and > >>> Mohamed Zahran. The applications submitted > after the closing dates were also > >>> examined by the NonCom. However, none of them could make it to the final > >>> list. > >>> > >>> In addition to selecting the 10 candidates to represent the civil society > >>> Internet Governance Caucus, the IGC Nomcom > was asked to consider an informal > >>> request to include representatives of the "technical community". > >>> We have not done so specifically, because > the request was informal and we do > >>> not believe it is appropriate in the spirit > of multi stakeholderism for our > >>> group to try to represent the wishes of a separate stakeholder group. And > >>> while we would point out that among the > names we are forwarding are people > >>> with long standing involvement in and knowledge of Internet technical and > >>> governance bodies, it is not up to us to > formally attempt representation for > >>> these bodies in reponse to an informal > request from some other party to do > >>> so. We believe a direct approach by CSTD to > bodies such as the NRO and ISOC > >>> from CSTD would be more appropriate. > >>> > >>> Some private correspondence was undertaken > with representatives of ISOC and > >>> RIRs before arriving at this position, and > we believe it is the appropriate > >>> response for all parties concerned in the circumstances. No names were > >>> submitted by these bodies for Nomcom consideration. > >>> > >>> The group defined its selection criteria for IGC representation as > >>> > >>> 1. Regular contributor to IGC > >>> 2. Consultative style with IGC members > >>> 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with CSTD > >>> 4. Knowledge of the UN system > >>> 5. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives held by > >>> civil society > >>> > >>> The group also decided that it would consider both geographic and gender > >>> diversity in determining its final slate from among the most supported > >>> candidates. > >>> > >>> Nomcom members then scored candidates individually and each nomcom member > >>> who participated came up with a list of 10 > names. These were collated , with > >>> the majority of candidates on our final > list being initially selected by all > >>> participating nomcom members. The Nomcom > then discussed finalisation of the > >>> slate and the merits of respective candidates, bearing in mind geographic > >>> and gender balance as much as possible to come up with a final list. > >>> This was a very tight timeframe. Nomcom members worked very well together > >>> and with a great deal of agreement on how to proceed to bring this to a > >>> successful conclusion in a tight timeframe. > >>> > >>> Finally, we must add that the slate of candidates available for selection > >>> was extraordinarily good, and > representative of the diverse talents within > >>> the Internet Governance Caucus. While on > this occasion, for the purposes of > >>> CSTD representation, the Nomcom clearly > wanted to ensure that some of IGC’s > >>> more experienced members were involved, we would like to stress that for > >>> future tasks, such as MAG rotation, different criteria would apply and we > >>> would like to see more people having the > opportunity to represent IGC. So we > >>> would encourage unsuccessful nominees on this occasion to put their names > >>> forward again in the future and thank them > for their offer to contribute on > >>> this occasion. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Ian Peter > >>> On behalf of Nomcom > >>> > >>> PS - and as a personal note - we were only able to deliver a slate of > >>> candidates in this short period of time because of the calibre of the > >>> participating Nomcom members. Although the timeframe did not allow the > >>> participation of Qasai, I must say that Jacquiline, Guru and Hempal all > >>> displayed high level abilities to hear each other perspectives and > >>> compromise in order to get a result. It is not easy to undertake such an > >>> exercise in such a short time frame but the participating Nomcom members > >>> took to the task and did a wonderful job for IGC. > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >*********************************************************** >William J. Drake >Senior Associate >Centre for International Governance >Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies >Geneva, Switzerland >william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >www.williamdrake.org >*********************************************************** > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Oct 31 06:07:03 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:07:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN Ombudsman says good bye References: <4CBC9C42.1080801@apc.org> <4CBD427D.3070809@itforchange.net> <41784D1C-ED35-4DC4-8256-8CBF67BE520D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4CBD6936.9060202@itforchange.net> <982CDE0C-6142-48D4-B1AF-9FEBCF539AD4@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0736B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> "It's time for me to spend a bit more time at home with my wonderful wife." http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28oct10-en.htm 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 iza at anr.org Sun Oct 31 10:33:28 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 23:33:28 +0900 Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach Message-ID: Dear list, After starting the role of co-coordinator, I have been thinking, and also discussing with Jeremy, about the "way forward" - or more specifically, working method, modus operandi, of our caucus. Considering the many tasks ahead of us in relatively short time period, I think we need good division of labor and effective working team(s). We don't want to become a workhorse ;-), rather we would like to "coordinate", meaning to facilitate moves and works of many members of the caucus. The more people involved in the actual work, the better. For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the followings. a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate extension debate/negotiations around UN b) Work Plan - based on the strategy, we need to plan ahead on how to work - to push our agenda - this may include forming Working Groups, ad hoc teams, use some additional online tools etc. c) Outreach Plan/actions One of the points we have discussed on the list was, if I may, the relative lack of outreach of our group, with larger Civil Society groups. Compared with WSIS days, we have less involvement from larger clouds of CS. How to address this and move forward. We like to ask you to think about these points, come up with opinions, suggestions and plans, and eventually, or quickly move to actions based on [rough] consensus with bottom-up ways. We also like some of you to become active members, taking leading roles for different items. Form working groups etc. To have wider division of labor of our work. Of course, we are open to your suggestions and also welcome more volunteers! best, izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Oct 31 11:55:42 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:25:42 -0430 Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CCD917E.4090209@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 mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Sun Oct 31 14:02:06 2010 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 19:02:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach In-Reply-To: <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> References: <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> Message-ID: +1 CW PS: ... although I am not planning, personally, to become a very much more active IGC member because I am already committed in related CS activities. On 31 Oct 2010, at 16:55, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone, > I would like to ask for concrete support for Izumi's initiative. > Last year, these attempts did not get past a 'theoretical' stage. > The IGC is now in a very healthy, solid condition, and I think we > should take advantage of Izumi's and Jeremy's willingness to review > and organize our strategies to make our work more effective. > > Count me in! > Best, Ginger > > On 10/31/2010 10:03 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> Dear list, >> >> After starting the role of co-coordinator, I have been thinking, and >> also discussing >> with Jeremy, about the "way forward" - or more specifically, working >> method, modus operandi, of our caucus. >> >> Considering the many tasks ahead of us in relatively short time >> period, I think >> we need good division of labor and effective working team(s). >> >> We don't want to become a workhorse ;-), rather we would like to >> "coordinate", meaning to >> facilitate moves and works of many members of the caucus. The more >> people >> involved in the actual work, the better. >> >> For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the >> followings. >> >> a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate >> extension debate/negotiations around UN >> >> b) Work Plan - based on the strategy, we need to plan ahead on how to >> work - to push our agenda - this may include forming Working Groups, >> ad hoc teams, use some additional online tools etc. >> >> c) Outreach Plan/actions >> One of the points we have discussed on the list was, if I may, the >> relative lack of outreach of our group, with larger Civil Society >> groups. Compared with WSIS days, we have less involvement from larger >> clouds of CS. How to address this and move forward. >> >> We like to ask you to think about these points, come up with >> opinions, >> suggestions and plans, and eventually, or quickly move to actions >> based on >> [rough] consensus with bottom-up ways. >> >> We also like some of you to become active members, taking leading >> roles >> for different items. Form working groups etc. To have wider division >> of labor of our work. >> >> Of course, we are open to your suggestions and also welcome more >> volunteers! >> >> best, >> >> izumi >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > -- > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IGCBP Online Coordinator > DiploFoundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > The latest from Diplo... > http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An > Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. > Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Sun Oct 31 14:21:43 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:21:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach In-Reply-To: <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> References: <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> Message-ID: I agree with Ginger. Let's take this beyond the theoretical and beyond analysis (i.e. Endless Discussion) and into practical action. I am willing to support. Rgds, Tracy On 10/31/10, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone, > I would like to ask for concrete support for Izumi's initiative. Last year, > these attempts did not get past a 'theoretical' stage. The IGC is now in a > very healthy, solid condition, and I think we should take advantage of > Izumi's and Jeremy's willingness to review and organize our strategies to > make our work more effective. > > Count me in! > Best, Ginger > > On 10/31/2010 10:03 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> Dear list, >> >> After starting the role of co-coordinator, I have been thinking, and >> also discussing >> with Jeremy, about the "way forward" - or more specifically, working >> method, modus operandi, of our caucus. >> >> Considering the many tasks ahead of us in relatively short time period, I >> think >> we need good division of labor and effective working team(s). >> >> We don't want to become a workhorse ;-), rather we would like to >> "coordinate", meaning to >> facilitate moves and works of many members of the caucus. The more people >> involved in the actual work, the better. >> >> For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the >> followings. >> >> a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate >> extension debate/negotiations around UN >> >> b) Work Plan - based on the strategy, we need to plan ahead on how to >> work - to push our agenda - this may include forming Working Groups, >> ad hoc teams, use some additional online tools etc. >> >> c) Outreach Plan/actions >> One of the points we have discussed on the list was, if I may, the >> relative lack of outreach of our group, with larger Civil Society >> groups. Compared with WSIS days, we have less involvement from larger >> clouds of CS. How to address this and move forward. >> >> We like to ask you to think about these points, come up with opinions, >> suggestions and plans, and eventually, or quickly move to actions based on >> [rough] consensus with bottom-up ways. >> >> We also like some of you to become active members, taking leading roles >> for different items. Form working groups etc. To have wider division >> of labor of our work. >> >> Of course, we are open to your suggestions and also welcome more >> volunteers! >> >> best, >> >> izumi >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > -- > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IGCBP Online Coordinator > DiploFoundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > The latest from Diplo... > http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to > Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the > blogs and post your comments. -- 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 hempalshrestha at gmail.com Sun Oct 31 14:25:36 2010 From: hempalshrestha at gmail.com (Hempal Shrestha) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 00:10:36 +0545 Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach In-Reply-To: References: <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> Message-ID: +1, I am also in for more engaged and collaborative working groups on various assignments / tasks Regards, Hempal Shrestha On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google < tracyhackshaw at gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with Ginger. > > Let's take this beyond the theoretical and beyond analysis (i.e. > Endless Discussion) and into practical action. > > I am willing to support. > > Rgds, > > Tracy > > On 10/31/10, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I would like to ask for concrete support for Izumi's initiative. Last > year, > > these attempts did not get past a 'theoretical' stage. The IGC is now in > a > > very healthy, solid condition, and I think we should take advantage of > > Izumi's and Jeremy's willingness to review and organize our strategies to > > make our work more effective. > > > > Count me in! > > Best, Ginger > > > > On 10/31/2010 10:03 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> > >> Dear list, > >> > >> After starting the role of co-coordinator, I have been thinking, and > >> also discussing > >> with Jeremy, about the "way forward" - or more specifically, working > >> method, modus operandi, of our caucus. > >> > >> Considering the many tasks ahead of us in relatively short time period, > I > >> think > >> we need good division of labor and effective working team(s). > >> > >> We don't want to become a workhorse ;-), rather we would like to > >> "coordinate", meaning to > >> facilitate moves and works of many members of the caucus. The more > people > >> involved in the actual work, the better. > >> > >> For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the > >> followings. > >> > >> a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate > >> extension debate/negotiations around UN > >> > >> b) Work Plan - based on the strategy, we need to plan ahead on how to > >> work - to push our agenda - this may include forming Working Groups, > >> ad hoc teams, use some additional online tools etc. > >> > >> c) Outreach Plan/actions > >> One of the points we have discussed on the list was, if I may, the > >> relative lack of outreach of our group, with larger Civil Society > >> groups. Compared with WSIS days, we have less involvement from larger > >> clouds of CS. How to address this and move forward. > >> > >> We like to ask you to think about these points, come up with opinions, > >> suggestions and plans, and eventually, or quickly move to actions based > on > >> [rough] consensus with bottom-up ways. > >> > >> We also like some of you to become active members, taking leading roles > >> for different items. Form working groups etc. To have wider division > >> of labor of our work. > >> > >> Of course, we are open to your suggestions and also welcome more > >> volunteers! > >> > >> best, > >> > >> izumi > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > -- > > > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > IGCBP Online Coordinator > > DiploFoundation > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > > The latest from Diplo... > > http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction > to > > Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read > the > > blogs and post your comments. > > -- > 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 > -- Best Regards, Hempal Shrestha Kathmandu, Nepal Mobile No : 977-98510-77031 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t