From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Sep 30 17:16:18 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:16:18 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Thanks to Ginger References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A071FA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Ginger you have been great. And your speech in Vilnjus was excellent. Thanks a lot Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Gesendet: Do 30.09.2010 22:25 An: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Cc: Ginger Paque Betreff: [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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Sep 30 17:57:11 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 02:57:11 +0500 Subject: [governance] Thanks to Ginger In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Ian for initiating this and giving us the opportunity to share our heartfelt thoughts about our exemplary colleague and friend who has taken IGC to a new level. Ginger is both a wonderful person and a great hard worker and this will not be myself alone and in fact all IGC members will appreciate her work with us! Her coordination of the IGC has been exemplary as well as her overall contributions to both IGC and IGF. In her other life where she fuels and catalyses Internet Governance Capacity Building, I am amongst a global population that has experienced her leadership and successful management of programmes and when she joined the IGC coordination role, she already brought with her a great deal of successful leadership to benefit our Civil Society community. I have had the opportunity to work with her during the IGF open consultations and IGF in general and there are many positive contributions she has made such as stimulating Youth Participation and working with other IGC members to improve and increase remote participation. Despite the end of her IGC coordination term, I believe that we will continue to benefit from her full participation! Ginger you make us proud! Your dedication to this role, and hard work to keep things running smoothly has been excellent. Hats of to you dear friend and kindly accept mine and others joining to extend our best wishes for your continued success in IGC and other personal and professional endeavours. Good luck! -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > 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 From kichango at gmail.com Thu Sep 30 18:18:46 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:18:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <058685E1D6ED497FA7386407793B7886@userPC> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > On 9/29/10, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > I really don't think the rule of voting at one election prior to be > formally > > considered member is such a hurdle that some people make it sound. After > > all, how often does that membership status have any consequence? People > on > > the list can always vote at any time. Only certain decisions, of > particular > > importance for the group, require as condition for participation that > one's > > involvement be old of 1 vote casted, or that one did not miss the > previous > > vote. Is that really too much? > > The idea being debated is not an interpretation that voting in ANY > single prior election qualifies for Charter voting, but the > IMMEDIATELY prior election. > I got that, and that's what I meant. Granted, my wording missed the time *continuity* aspect of the "1 vote old" condition at the time of the charter amendment vote (although the alternate proposition "one did not miss the previous vote" that followed is rather clear in that regard.) > > Recall that there have been elections in which, before the election is > over, people have to be urged to vote in order to have a quorum. > Regardless of the type of election, it shows that with everyone's busy > schedules, turnout can be a problem. Thus, after every election there > is a rotating but relatively large number of people disqualified for > the next election if it is a Charter vote, and those people are not by > any means just newcomers to the list. It could be anybody. It has > included me. > Probably as several other people here, I once took a long leave of absence from this list and IGC altogether due, namely, to a busy schedule as you noted may happen. I'm sure I missed votes during that time, one of which might have been for a charter amendment (or the first vote after I resumed participation might have been). And I accept the consequences, whatever they may be, based on the group's constitutional rule. So I perfectly understand it's not just a problem of newcomers (hence the "elders" vs "young ones" dichotomy made earlier is not the point; anybody may slip out of membership at any time.) You may also want to note that our elections generally run several days, maybe 2 weeks or so. 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.) Thanks Mawaki > > -- > 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Thu Sep 30 19:10:41 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 01:10:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] New Blogpost: Investment 58-Poverty 14: The UN's Message-ID: <22052842.11264.1285888241558.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g03> > 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 aizu at anr.org Thu Sep 30 19:29:16 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 08:29:16 +0900 Subject: [governance] Thanks to Ginger In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, thank you Ian for initiating this important thread. I would like to join others for thanking you, Ginger, for your tireless hard work. I feel a little difficult to express my feeling at the moment as we all wait for the outcome of the new co-coordinator election, but whoever gets it, it is quite a challenge to catch up since you have done such a great job!! Having not so much following our activity for the past months, I am very much encouraged to sort of "come back" here because of your excellent management, or coordination, for this important global role. Ginger, please do not go away, but guide us with your always warm and balanced acts. But for now, you deserve some good rest, as well. 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 pkisokau at gmail.com Thu Sep 30 21:55:52 2010 From: pkisokau at gmail.com (Parkop Kisokau) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:55:52 +0800 Subject: [governance] Thanks to Ginger In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Ian for initiating this important thread. Let me join the others by appreciating the great contributions Ginger has had towards the IGC. From, IGCBP to IGF and others in the IGC, you have been hard working, skillful, diplomatic, and mostly warm and tireless in handling your duties. You've done well, congratulations! At the same I believe in the ability of the new coordinators that they will be able to carry on where Ginger had left. Thank you Ginger and best wishes. Parkop Kisokau Masters Student in Telecom Engineering University of Science and Technology Beijing China On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Yes, thank you Ian for initiating this important thread. > I would like to join others for thanking you, Ginger, for your tireless > hard work. > > I feel a little difficult to express my feeling at the moment as we > all wait for the outcome of the new co-coordinator election, but > whoever gets it, it is quite a challenge to catch up since you have done > such a great job!! > > Having not so much following our activity for the past months, I am > very much encouraged to sort of "come back" here because of your > excellent management, or coordination, for this important global role. > > Ginger, please do not go away, but guide us with your always warm > and balanced acts. But for now, you deserve some good rest, as well. > > 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Sep 30 22:02:28 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:02:28 +0800 Subject: [governance] Thanks to Ginger In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54718B52-D2A6-44FC-9E54-2F96767E5A1C@ciroap.org> 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 -------------- 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 Wed Sep 1 03:15:01 2010 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 16:15:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] FYI: ITU & ICANN In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992236B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <201008271402.o7RE2c13004610@well.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06FF5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992236B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi Milton, I think that was good move from ICANN, I guess that they were expecting such response from ITU and maybe even wanted it ;) . it was a trap and ITU fall there miserably :) now people are talking mostly about "enhanced cooperation" and the no willingness of ITU. and the response came just after ICANN board resolution http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05aug10-en.htm#6 about "international Dimension of ICANN" with the purpose to cooperate with international organizations. Regards Rafik 2010/8/29 Milton L Mueller > ITU is an intergovernmental organization, and ICANN is neither governmental > nor inter-governmental. They might as well ask for a seat on the UN Security > Council. > > We all know that the ITU and many of its key member states (China, the Arab > states, Russia, etc.) support a purely intergovernmental model for Internet > governance. Why should we be "shocked, shocked" at this? > > However, if the U.S. govt succeeds in its current efforts to make GAC the > veto authority over all ICANN policies, then perhaps it should qualify as an > intergovernmental org sometime in the near future. ;-) > > --MM > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > not much in the way of "enhanced cooperation" in that letter is there? > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > 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 rajendrapoudel at gha.or.jp Wed Sep 1 06:23:07 2010 From: rajendrapoudel at gha.or.jp (Rajendra Poudel) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 19:23:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <378677.66713.qm@web55203.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> <4C7C1715.6090105@nupef.org.br> <378677.66713.qm@web55203.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Can I do voting? On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:52 AM, shaila mistry wrote: > Hi All > My preference is for the following although it is difficult to chose . I > am satisfied with the selection process that we have adopted . > > Parminder (confirmed) > Karen Banks (confirmed) > Katitza Rodriguez (confirmed) > Ginger Paque/Jeremy ( Cordinators) > > Regards > Shaila Rao Mistry**** > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > ** > ** > Ginger Paque escreveu: > > We have a final list of nominated speakers (below), and face the > difficult process of choosing 4 of our excellent possibilities. I suggest we > try to do this as soon as possible, so we can give names to the IGF > Secretariat, and so that speakers may prepare their statements according to > the consensus guidelines reached by the IGC. > > > > --I suggest that people express their support for preferred speakers, so > that we can narrow the list in an informal process if preferences are clear. > > > > Since the consensus seems to be clear that the speakers should accept IGC > guidelines for their statements, I also ask that nominated speakers who > disagree with this concept express this clearly on the list as soon as > possible, for the sake of transparency. > > > > At this point these is a proposal for a way forward and open to > discussion if anyone wants to suggest an alternative procedure. If you > disagree with this proposal, please let us know as soon as possible. I > understand that silence does not necessarily mean agreement, but if > alternate opinions are not expressed, we have no way of taking them under > consideration. Please opine in a timely manner. > > > > Gracias! Merci and Thanks, > > Best, Ginger > > > > Updated list for discussion: > > > > Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) > > Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) > > Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) > > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) > > Parminder (confirmed) > > Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) > > Karen Banks (confirmed) > > Ben Akoh (confirmed) > > Katitza Rodriguez (confirmed) > > Marilia Maciel (confirmed for opening) > > > > > > > > On 8/25/2010 11:36 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> > >> IGC nominations for CS speakers have now been open for one week. I ask > than any final nominations be made within the next 24 hours. If your > nomination must be delayed longer than that, but you would like it to be > included, please let me know by private email during those same 24 hours. > Thanks! Best, ginger > >> > >> Current list of nominees. > >> > >> Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) > >> Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) > >> Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) > >> Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) > >> Parminder (confirmed) > >> Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) (in discussion) > >> Karen Banks (unconfirmed) > >> Ben Akoh (unconfirmed) > >> Katitza Rodriguez (unconfirmed) > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- E-Networking Research and Development Nepal Wireless Networking Project (NWP) Shiva Bhakta Marga-304, Lazimpat Kathmandu, Nepal Po.Box: 12651 Ph: +977-1-4428090 E-mail: enrd at wlink.com.np http://www.enrd.org http://www.nepalwireless.net http://www.himanchal.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 Wed Sep 1 07:12:28 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 19:12:28 +0800 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: References: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> <4C7C1715.6090105@nupef.org.br> <378677.66713.qm@web55203.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 01/09/2010, at 6:23 PM, Rajendra Poudel wrote: > Can I do voting? If we can't reduce the field to four candidates this week, then I can set up an online poll for "voting". However, Ginger and I are waiting until Friday to determine whether we need to do that. It may be that a rough consensus can be reached without the need for 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Sep 1 10:54:59 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 16:54:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] FYI: ITU & ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <201008271402.o7RE2c13004610@well.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06FF5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992236B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8CB39845-7C95-4CCB-A358-E2E4456F5EBD@graduateinstitute.ch> I agree with Rafik, it wasn't very strategic of ITU and could be useful to ICANN et al (whether this was a strategic calculation or "trap," who knows, ask Rod I guess). Among other things, it helps to set a frame for how the Plenipotentiary outcomes will be received and reported, e.g. if ITU does more resolutions etc asserting its centrality to IG, right to make policy on ICANN matters, etc., it won't play terribly well in many circles that ICANN's leadership was not even allowed into the building while all this was happening. There will be ripples... Also agree with Milton about procedures actually being part of the story. Similarly, I'm told that companies that pay to join, say, ITU-T, are not allowed to attend meetings of ITU-D unless they pay there too. The budgetary model is an issue with respect to possible CS participation as well. If they were integrated into the UN system some things might be easier, but that won't happen. Bill On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Milton, > > I think that was good move from ICANN, I guess that they were expecting such response from ITU and maybe even wanted it ;) . it was a trap and ITU fall there miserably :) now people are talking mostly about "enhanced cooperation" and the no willingness of ITU. > and the response came just after ICANN board resolution http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05aug10-en.htm#6 about "international Dimension of ICANN" with the purpose to cooperate with international organizations. > > Regards > > Rafik > > 2010/8/29 Milton L Mueller > ITU is an intergovernmental organization, and ICANN is neither governmental nor inter-governmental. They might as well ask for a seat on the UN Security Council. > > We all know that the ITU and many of its key member states (China, the Arab states, Russia, etc.) support a purely intergovernmental model for Internet governance. Why should we be "shocked, shocked" at this? > > However, if the U.S. govt succeeds in its current efforts to make GAC the veto authority over all ICANN policies, then perhaps it should qualify as an intergovernmental org sometime in the near future. ;-) > > --MM > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > not much in the way of "enhanced cooperation" in that letter is there? > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 1 16:25:53 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:55:53 -0430 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Meeting EU - civil society 17th September, 13:30 - 14:30, room 6 Message-ID: <4C7EB6D1.4000007@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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Sep 1 17:01:26 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 17:01:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: References: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> <4C7C1715.6090105@nupef.org.br> <378677.66713.qm@web55203.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: A round of ballotnig may be preferable if the wish is to have the candidates represent the entire group (as much as possible) as opposed to the natural human inclination to represent the views of those voters who voted for you more than those who didn't. On 9/1/10, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 01/09/2010, at 6:23 PM, Rajendra Poudel wrote: > >> Can I do voting? > > If we can't reduce the field to four candidates this week, then I can set up > an online poll for "voting". However, Ginger and I are waiting until Friday > to determine whether we need to do that. It may be that a rough consensus > can be reached without the need for 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. > > -- 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Sep 1 17:40:17 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 23:40:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] Global Relationships Committee Charter In-Reply-To: <8CB39845-7C95-4CCB-A358-E2E4456F5EBD@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <201008271402.o7RE2c13004610@well.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06FF5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992236B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8CB39845-7C95-4CCB-A358-E2E4456F5EBD@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100901233857.0564c640@jefsey.com> I am afraid I cannot find any "Global Relationships Committee Charter " document anywhere. What has the BoD adopted? jfc At 16:54 01/09/2010, William Drake wrote: >I agree with Rafik, it wasn't very strategic of ITU and could be >useful to ICANN et al (whether this was a strategic calculation or >"trap," who knows, ask Rod I guess). Among other things, it helps >to set a frame for how the Plenipotentiary outcomes will be received >and reported, e.g. if ITU does more resolutions etc asserting its >centrality to IG, right to make policy on ICANN matters, etc., it >won't play terribly well in many circles that ICANN's leadership was >not even allowed into the building while all this was >happening. There will be ripples... > >Also agree with Milton about procedures actually being part of the >story. Similarly, I'm told that companies that pay to join, say, >ITU-T, are not allowed to attend meetings of ITU-D unless they pay >there too. The budgetary model is an issue with respect to possible >CS participation as well. If they were integrated into the UN >system some things might be easier, but that won't happen. > >B -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Sep 2 02:52:50 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 11:52:50 +0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Meeting EU - civil society 17th September, In-Reply-To: <4C7EB6D1.4000007@gmail.com> References: <4C7EB6D1.4000007@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ginger, Is the meeting only targeted at EU based CS members or it is for CS members from other parts of the world to attend as well? On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Forwarded from > From: > > Dear all, > > As in previous years at the ocassion of the IGF, a meeting between EU > representatives and representatives of civil society is planned for this > year's meeting in Vilnius. > > Time and venue are: 17th September, 13:30 - 14:30, room 6 at the IGF > premises > Best regards, > > Elisabeth Markot > European Commission > DG Information Society and Media > Unit A3 Internet; Network and Information Security > Tel: +32 2 29 80 105 > Mobile: +32 498 980 105 > elisabeth.markot at ec.europa.eu > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Sep 2 03:43:07 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 09:43:07 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Global Relationships Committee Charter References: <201008271402.o7RE2c13004610@well.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06FF5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992236B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8CB39845-7C95-4CCB-A358-E2E4456F5EBD@graduateinstitute.ch> <7.0.1.0.2.20100901233857.0564c640@jefsey.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0706D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Bills comments are very useful and right to the point. It starts with the UN. And it is very linked to "budget". The need, to pay for all the ITU facilities in Geneva and the big staff in the many offices is an important driving force behind ITUs ongoing effortsd to look for new business which could help them to bring additional money into their empty pockets. BTW, it would be good to re-call the report of the Cardozo Commission on CS involvment in the UN. We should do this at the IGF when our speaker touchesd the issue oif the future of the IGF, multistakeholder processes and the role of CS in global policy development. And JFC asks the right question: The Resolution does not point to a text of a GRC Charter. Dies anyboday has an idea where a draft of this charter is pubished? Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: jefsey [mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com] Gesendet: Mi 01.09.2010 23:40 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] Global Relationships Committee Charter I am afraid I cannot find any "Global Relationships Committee Charter " document anywhere. What has the BoD adopted? jfc At 16:54 01/09/2010, William Drake wrote: I agree with Rafik, it wasn't very strategic of ITU and could be useful to ICANN et al (whether this was a strategic calculation or "trap," who knows, ask Rod I guess). Among other things, it helps to set a frame for how the Plenipotentiary outcomes will be received and reported, e.g. if ITU does more resolutions etc asserting its centrality to IG, right to make policy on ICANN matters, etc., it won't play terribly well in many circles that ICANN's leadership was not even allowed into the building while all this was happening. There will be ripples... Also agree with Milton about procedures actually being part of the story. Similarly, I'm told that companies that pay to join, say, ITU-T, are not allowed to attend meetings of ITU-D unless they pay there too. The budgetary model is an issue with respect to possible CS participation as well. If they were integrated into the UN system some things might be easier, but that won't happen. B ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Sep 2 04:19:55 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:19:55 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Global Relationships Committee Charter In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0706D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <201008271402.o7RE2c13004610@well.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06FF5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992236B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8CB39845-7C95-4CCB-A358-E2E4456F5EBD@graduateinstitute.ch> <7.0.1.0.2.20100901233857.0564c640@jefsey.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0706D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On Sep 2, 2010, at 9:43 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Bills comments are very useful and right to the point. It starts with the UN. And it is very linked to "budget". The need, to pay for all the ITU facilities in Geneva and the big staff in the many offices is an important driving force behind ITUs ongoing effortsd to look for new business which could help them to bring additional money into their empty pockets. BTW, it would be good to re-call the report of the Cardozo Commission on CS involvment in the UN. We should do this at the IGF when our speaker touchesd the issue oif the future of the IGF, multistakeholder processes and the role of CS in global policy development. > > And JFC asks the right question: The Resolution does not point to a text of a GRC Charter. Dies anyboday has an idea where a draft of this charter is pubished? I asked on the GNSO Council list a month ago and got no reply from either staff or our board member. Interesting. Have asked again, will let you know if I get an answer. Bill > > ________________________________ > > Von: jefsey [mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com] > Gesendet: Mi 01.09.2010 23:40 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: [governance] Global Relationships Committee Charter > > > I am afraid I cannot find any "Global Relationships Committee Charter " document anywhere. What has the BoD adopted? > jfc > > At 16:54 01/09/2010, William Drake wrote: > > > I agree with Rafik, it wasn't very strategic of ITU and could be useful to ICANN et al (whether this was a strategic calculation or "trap," who knows, ask Rod I guess). Among other things, it helps to set a frame for how the Plenipotentiary outcomes will be received and reported, e.g. if ITU does more resolutions etc asserting its centrality to IG, right to make policy on ICANN matters, etc., it won't play terribly well in many circles that ICANN's leadership was not even allowed into the building while all this was happening. There will be ripples... > > Also agree with Milton about procedures actually being part of the story. Similarly, I'm told that companies that pay to join, say, ITU-T, are not allowed to attend meetings of ITU-D unless they pay there too. The budgetary model is an issue with respect to possible CS participation as well. If they were integrated into the UN system some things might be easier, but that won't happen. > > B > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t *********************************************************** 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Sep 2 07:04:22 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 19:04:22 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGF Community Site for Vilnius Message-ID: <1BBE4E50-5975-42E7-BB94-60F6A337ECA5@ciroap.org> I'm writing here not as the IGC Co-Coordinator, but as the developer and maintainer of the original IGF Community Site. Version 2.0 of the site, since the Rio meeting, has been at http://igf-online.net. It continues to offer facilities that don't exist either in the Web sites of the Secretariat, Host Country, or Remote Participation Working Group - and which are freely available for anyone to use. These facilities include a wiki, community blog, subscribable calendar, feed aggregation, mailing lists, chat server, and a multilingual, embeddable menu bar that links all the official and community IGF resources together. All the software used to provide this is 100% free and open source. The purpose of this email is to draw your attention to some of these facilities, which may be helpful in the lead-up to the Vilnius meeting. Here is a quick walkthrough which highlights the features of the site: 1. Begin at http://igf-online.net/. The menu bar that runs across the top links you to all the official and community resources you need for IGF 2010. If it's not in your preferred language, try switching to French, Spanish or Russian from the Language menu (we're still seeking Arabic and Chinese translations). 2. Click the "Info/Wiki" menu and the "Calendar" item, which will take you to the IGF week by default. If you like, switch from "Week" to "Day" view using the controls on the right hand side. You can subscribe to the calendar in software such as iCal or Sunbird using the "Subscribe" link. Even non-official events can be listed here. 3. Click on any event displayed in the calendar, then click again on the link in the small window that opens up, to load up a dedicated blog page for that event. As you'll see, three links are already included in the blog post: the official workshop description, a link back to the calendar, and a wiki page for the event. 4. You can contribute information about the event (such as a report, feedback, or questions) in one of two ways: by simply replying to the event blog post, or by editing the linked wiki page. (If you want to be sure the event organisers see what you write, it is best to drop them an email pointing them to it.) 5. In either case, you'll need to log in to the blog or wiki before posting to it. The easiest way to do that is with an OpenID. If you have a Google or Yahoo account, you already have an OpenID! If not, there are many places to sign up for one - see http://openid.net/get-an-openid. Or, just register on the Community Site itself. 6. Say that you have something to blog about that doesn't relate to a specific IGF event. No problem! If you have a blog of your own, drop me a link to it - I'll add it to the aggregated RSS feed which is available under the "Feeds" link from the "Info/Wiki" menu bar. If you don't have one, blog on the Community Site itself! Just click "Site Admin" once logged in. I hope that this has given you a flavour for just how useful this resource can be - and it will only become more useful as more people begin to use it. So please also blog, tweet, link to and tell as many people as you can about the IGF Community SIte. Hope to see your contributions there soon! -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Sep 2 20:26:07 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:56:07 -0430 Subject: Fwd: RE: [governance] Fwd: Meeting EU - civil society 17th September, Message-ID: <4C80409F.4070801@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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Sep 3 07:52:35 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 13:52:35 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Global Relationships Committee Charter In-Reply-To: References: <201008271402.o7RE2c13004610@well.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06FF5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992236B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8CB39845-7C95-4CCB-A358-E2E4456F5EBD@graduateinstitute.ch> <7.0.1.0.2.20100901233857.0564c640@jefsey.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0706D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <6947BF06-EDE7-44C3-BAB9-EED6697283E3@graduateinstitute.ch> FWIW I am told that the answer on the ICANN GRC is that the Board Governance Committee has recommended members of the committee; the Board Global Relationships Committee will finalize the draft charter, which will then be ratified by the Board; and membership of the committee and the charter should be published once finalized. Bill On Sep 2, 2010, at 10:19 AM, William Drake wrote: > > On Sep 2, 2010, at 9:43 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> Bills comments are very useful and right to the point. It starts with the UN. And it is very linked to "budget". The need, to pay for all the ITU facilities in Geneva and the big staff in the many offices is an important driving force behind ITUs ongoing effortsd to look for new business which could help them to bring additional money into their empty pockets. BTW, it would be good to re-call the report of the Cardozo Commission on CS involvment in the UN. We should do this at the IGF when our speaker touchesd the issue oif the future of the IGF, multistakeholder processes and the role of CS in global policy development. >> >> And JFC asks the right question: The Resolution does not point to a text of a GRC Charter. Dies anyboday has an idea where a draft of this charter is pubished? > > I asked on the GNSO Council list a month ago and got no reply from either staff or our board member. Interesting. Have asked again, will let you know if I get an answer. > > Bill > >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: jefsey [mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com] >> Gesendet: Mi 01.09.2010 23:40 >> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Betreff: [governance] Global Relationships Committee Charter >> >> >> I am afraid I cannot find any "Global Relationships Committee Charter " document anywhere. What has the BoD adopted? >> jfc >> >> At 16:54 01/09/2010, William Drake wrote: >> >> >> I agree with Rafik, it wasn't very strategic of ITU and could be useful to ICANN et al (whether this was a strategic calculation or "trap," who knows, ask Rod I guess). Among other things, it helps to set a frame for how the Plenipotentiary outcomes will be received and reported, e.g. if ITU does more resolutions etc asserting its centrality to IG, right to make policy on ICANN matters, etc., it won't play terribly well in many circles that ICANN's leadership was not even allowed into the building while all this was happening. There will be ripples... >> >> Also agree with Milton about procedures actually being part of the story. Similarly, I'm told that companies that pay to join, say, ITU-T, are not allowed to attend meetings of ITU-D unless they pay there too. The budgetary model is an issue with respect to possible CS participation as well. If they were integrated into the UN system some things might be easier, but that won't happen. >> >> B ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Sep 3 09:46:37 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 06:46:37 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the Empowered or Effective Data Use for Everyone? Message-ID: <639C360DB7F047708CB8DF67F3EDC889@userPC> Perhaps a wee bit off topic, but there may be an interest. Mike Efforts to extend access to "data" will perhaps inevitably create a "data divide" parallel to the oft-discussed "digital divide" between those who have access to data which could have significance in their daily lives and those who don't. Associated with this will one can assume, be many of the same background conditions which have been identified as likely reasons for the digital divide-that is differences in income, education, literacy and so on. However, just as with the "digital divide", these divisions don't simply stop or be resolved with the provision of digital (or data) "access". What is necessary as well, is that those for whom access is being provided are in a position to actually make use of the now available access (to the Internet or to data) in ways that are meaningful and beneficial for them. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/open-data-empowering-the-empowered- or-effective-data-use-for-everyone/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Fri Sep 3 10:16:48 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 15:16:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the Empowered or In-Reply-To: <639C360DB7F047708CB8DF67F3EDC889@userPC> References: <639C360DB7F047708CB8DF67F3EDC889@userPC> Message-ID: Mike What exactly do you mean by data and access to data? Rui On 3 September 2010 14:46, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Perhaps a wee bit off topic, but there may be an interest. > > Mike > > > Efforts to extend access to "data" will perhaps inevitably create a "data > divide" parallel to the oft-discussed "digital divide" between those who > have access to data which could have significance in their daily lives and > those who don't. Associated with this will one can assume, be many of the > same background conditions which have been identified as likely reasons for > the digital divide-that is differences in income, education, literacy and > so > on. However, just as with the "digital divide", these divisions don't > simply stop or be resolved with the provision of digital (or data) > "access". > What is necessary as well, is that those for whom access is being provided > are in a position to actually make use of the now available access (to the > Internet or to data) in ways that are meaningful and beneficial for them. > > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/open-data-empowering-the-empowered- > or-effective-data-use-for-everyone/ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- _________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ àáâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Sep 3 10:30:57 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 07:30:57 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the Empowered or In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8E063AE47C2E453EA03A1F7C7BD3E816@userPC> Sorry Rui, the context is the on-going and extremely interesting discussion around "open data" (follow the links below... Several of those involved in this list are also involved in issues around "open data/knowledge" although I'm not really sure there is a direct connection to Internet Governance. "The open data movement in the area of access to public (and other) information is a relatively new but very significant, and potentially powerful, emerging force. It has now been widely endorsed by among others Tim Berners-Lee the Father of the Internet. The overall intention is to make local, regional and national data (and particularly publicly acquired data) available in a form that allows for direct manipulation using software tools as for example, for the purposes of cross-tabulation, visualization, mapping and so on." Mike -----Original Message----- From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 7:17 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the Empowered or Mike What exactly do you mean by data and access to data? Rui On 3 September 2010 14:46, Michael Gurstein wrote: Perhaps a wee bit off topic, but there may be an interest. Mike Efforts to extend access to "data" will perhaps inevitably create a "data divide" parallel to the oft-discussed "digital divide" between those who have access to data which could have significance in their daily lives and those who don't. Associated with this will one can assume, be many of the same background conditions which have been identified as likely reasons for the digital divide-that is differences in income, education, literacy and so on. However, just as with the "digital divide", these divisions don't simply stop or be resolved with the provision of digital (or data) "access". What is necessary as well, is that those for whom access is being provided are in a position to actually make use of the now available access (to the Internet or to data) in ways that are meaningful and beneficial for them. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/open-data-empowering-the-empowered- or-effective-data-use-for-everyone/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- _________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ àáâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Fri Sep 3 12:25:58 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 12:25:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the Empowered or In-Reply-To: <8E063AE47C2E453EA03A1F7C7BD3E816@userPC> References: <8E063AE47C2E453EA03A1F7C7BD3E816@userPC> Message-ID: "Open data" is a public good, but unless it is "open and honest" data, the public is in effect being manipulated rather than manipulating honest data. I'm inclined to support open data but with a major caveat. Hard won data and knowledge, such as professional knowledge, IP, etc., tends to be hoarded on the stated grounds of recovering investment & profiting from innovation. If it is initially protected data/knowledge and then liberated to be open, it is more likely reliable or honest data or knowledge. When it is provided for free in the first place, since most data has at least a nominal cost and some of the best data is hard to come by, it raises the question of whether open data is open and honest data. Advertising is always free to us, and the advertising industry stands as a trillion dollar proof of the eagerness to provide us with free, open data in order to manipulate us in the direction of the data provider's will. Paul Lehto, J.D. On 9/3/10, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Sorry Rui, the context is the on-going and extremely interesting discussion > around "open data" (follow the links below... > > Several of those involved in this list are also involved in issues around > "open data/knowledge" although I'm not really sure there is a direct > connection to Internet Governance. > > "The open data movement in the > area of access to public (and other) information is a relatively new but > very significant, and potentially powerful, emerging force. It has now been > widely endorsed by among others > html> Tim Berners-Lee the Father of the Internet. The overall intention is > to make local, regional and national data (and particularly publicly > acquired data) available in a form that allows for direct manipulation using > software tools as for example, for the purposes of cross-tabulation, > visualization, mapping and so on." > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 7:17 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the Empowered > or > > > Mike > > What exactly do you mean by data and access to data? > > Rui > > > On 3 September 2010 14:46, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > Perhaps a wee bit off topic, but there may be an interest. > > Mike > > > Efforts to extend access to "data" will perhaps inevitably create a "data > divide" parallel to the oft-discussed "digital divide" between those who > have access to data which could have significance in their daily lives and > those who don't. Associated with this will one can assume, be many of the > same background conditions which have been identified as likely reasons for > the digital divide-that is differences in income, education, literacy and so > on. However, just as with the "digital divide", these divisions don't > simply stop or be resolved with the provision of digital (or data) "access". > What is necessary as well, is that those for whom access is being provided > are in a position to actually make use of the now available access (to the > Internet or to data) in ways that are meaningful and beneficial for them. > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/open-data-empowering-the-empowered- > -%0Aor-effective-data-use-for-everyone/> > or-effective-data-use-for-everyone/ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > > _________________________ > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > àáâãçéêíóôõúç > > > > -- 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Sep 3 15:46:00 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 00:46:00 +0500 Subject: [governance] Open Invitation - Innovative Internet Governance Ideas and Approaches - An Open Discussion Space Message-ID: *Dear Colleagues, * I request all those participating in the *IGF 2010* both physically or remotely to participate in our subject workshop and to share this message with as many participants as possible. I thank you in advance for your support and cooperation in helping us to make this IGC Open Discussion Space a success! - Best, Fouad Bajwa *IGF Workshop No. 54. Innovative Internet Governance Ideas and Approaches - An Open Discussion Space * *Thursday, 16 September at 9:00 - 11:00 in Room 6* *(I*GF Theme: Development) This is an open space where you will be allowed to freely share your ideas and opinions about Internet Governance that can possibly help change the world we live in today. Link to the workshop information page: ** http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2010View&wspid=54 *Workshop Description:* A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share positive ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the developing and developed world utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for both developed and developing world participants. An example may be the ideas presented by Tim Berners-Lee at TED for Opening Data to the world that helped in providing concrete relief information on the ground during the Haiti earthquake crisis. Another idea may be Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis. *With the participation of all stakeholders*, including youth, the workshop will record the many positive ideas that evolve from this venue, measure the changes that they have enabled over time, and at the next IGF meeting identify which ideas had the greatest impact over the past 12 months since presented. *A round table open to all participants of the workshop.* The format will be 5 minutes given to each of the participants to share an existing or revolutionary idea. The Internet governance dimensions of each idea will also be explored. All the ideas will be recorded and categorized under various topics for measurement of impact over the following year. *There will be no formal panellists.* All participants will be given 3-5 minutes to share an idea. The moderator will be Fouad Bajwa. Participants are listed on the wiki at http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/Open_space_for_Internet_governance_ideas. This workshop was formerly titled "Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World". * Kindly let me know if you are participating so that we can arrange a list of participants before hand for record taking! If members from your organization or friends are participating, kindly inform them as well! *Organization:* Internet Governance Caucus *Contact Person:* Fouad Bajwa fouadbajwa at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Sat Sep 4 06:10:12 2010 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 11:10:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Survey In-Reply-To: References: <8E063AE47C2E453EA03A1F7C7BD3E816@userPC> Message-ID: <2DE6AEF51BC646F6807E92697CC45665@MTBJ> All, Thank you Jeremy and Ginger for initiating the survey. I think it's the best way to choose the speakers. Nevertheless, I suggest that the final list to be transmitted to the IGF secretary shouldn't include 2 names from the same region, and should include 2 men and 2 women (Gender and regional balance). So the result of the survey should be combined with the concept of balance to give the final list. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 4 22:21:56 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2010 21:51:56 -0430 Subject: [governance] Confirmation of IGF Workshop Remote Moderators: Please review Message-ID: <4C82FEC4.1050703@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 Sep 4 22:38:04 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2010 22:08:04 -0430 Subject: [governance] Call for volunteers for IGF Remote Moderators Message-ID: <4C83028C.2040102@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 andersj at elon.edu Sun Sep 5 10:39:01 2010 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 10:39:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] Invitation to participate now and/or in Vilnius In-Reply-To: <2DE6AEF51BC646F6807E92697CC45665@MTBJ> Message-ID: Hello to IGC participants, The Imagining the Internet Center at Elon University is sending four participants to IGF-Vilnius, where we are backing a number of workshops and DCs. Elon undergraduates Drew Smith, Sam Baranowski and Kirsten Bennett will be participating in four different workshops, and the leader of our delegation, Dr. Glenn Scott, a professor at Elon, will also be participating as a speaker at the meeting of the Dynamic Coalition for Core Values. Our team will also be quite busy collecting interviews, photos and video to post at http://www.imaginingtheinternet.org. They hope you will take the opportunity to participate in the IGF-Vilnius video survey. To get an idea of how it works, you can look at last year¹s results here: > http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_egypt/survey.xhtml > > We are proud to say that the US Library of Congress, our national repository > for knowledge, has begun adding the content of Imagining the Internet to its > digital archive. The contributions you make in participating in our surveys > are being documented not only to help inspire people to think about the future > today and inform policy but also to serve as a historic record of our time as > we work together to achieve the best evolution possible for human > communications and cooperation. > > We are still in the process of deciding what questions to ask this year. If > you would like to make suggestions, you can send them to me by replying to > this e-mail. > > Here are some questions that have been proposed as possibilities for this > year¹s survey so far: > > * CLOUD COMPUTING is the primary emerging issue being discussed at this IGF. > What are the most important positives and negatives of cloud computing? > > * Now a MOBILE INTERNET question: One reason cloud computing is predicted to > grow is the growth of the mobile Internet. What do you see as the biggest > challenge, opportunity or change that the mobile revolution brings? > > * A HUMAN RIGHT? Is Internet access a fundamental human right? Explain. Why? > > * THE INTERNET FIVE YEARS FROM NOW: Intermediaries are at work as the Internet > grows and people seek security, convenience, information filters, and so on. > Five years from now will the Internet be more open and accessible, about the > same, or less so? Explain. > > * ABOUT IGF: Why is IGF important? How can it be improved? > > * YOUR HOPE FOR THE FUTURE: What is your greatest hope for the future of the > Internet? > > * YOUR CONCERN FOR THE FUTURE: What is your greatest fear or concern for the > future of the Internet? > > * IN ONE WORD: Describe the future of the Internet in one word. > > Have an excellent conference! I will not be in Vilnius due to other > obligations, but I hope to catch some of the action online! > > Best, > Janna > > -- > Janna Quitney Anderson > Director of Imagining the Internet > www.imaginingtheinternet.org > Associate Professor of Communications > Director of Internet Projects > School of Communications > Elon University > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Sep 5 12:53:11 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 22:23:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Invitation to participate now and/or in Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C83CAF7.8070308@itforchange.net> Hi Janna That is a useful initiative. May I suggest you ask another question. How is IGF going to change the world... I mean, really 'how', pl give a bit of step by step reasoning. and maybe also What is the Internet primarily to you - a market space, a space for social interactions, a means of information and knowledge, a possibility towards a better, more fair and just world, a space for fantasy, a space that is other than the 'real world', a space that enhances the 'real world' ...... may be a couple of other options. (What is the Internet to the people of course has an important bearing on how it should be governed.) May give some useful insights. Thanks, and regards. Parminder On Sunday 05 September 2010 08:09 PM, Janna Anderson wrote: > Hello to IGC participants, > > The Imagining the Internet Center at Elon University is sending four > participants to IGF-Vilnius, where we are backing a number of > workshops and DCs. Elon undergraduates Drew Smith, Sam Baranowski and > Kirsten Bennett will be participating in four different workshops, and > the leader of our delegation, Dr. Glenn Scott, a professor at Elon, > will also be participating as a speaker at the meeting of the Dynamic > Coalition for Core Values. > > Our team will also be quite busy collecting interviews, photos and > video to post at _http://www.imaginingtheinternet.org_. They hope you > will take the opportunity to participate in the IGF-Vilnius video > survey. To get an idea of how it works, you can look at last year's > results here: > > *_http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_egypt/survey.xhtml_** > * > We are proud to say that the US Library of Congress, our national > repository for knowledge, has begun adding the content of > Imagining the Internet to its digital archive. The contributions > you make in participating in our surveys are being documented not > only to help inspire people to think about the future today and > inform policy but also to serve as a historic record of our time > as we work together to achieve the best evolution possible for > human communications and cooperation. > > We are still in the process of deciding what questions to ask this > year. If you would like to make suggestions, you can send them to > me by replying to this e-mail. > > Here are some questions that have been proposed as possibilities > for this year's survey so far: > > * *CLOUD COMPUTING* is the primary emerging issue being > discussed at this IGF. What are the most important positives > and negatives of cloud computing? > > > * Now a *MOBILE INTERNET* question: One reason cloud computing > is predicted to grow is the growth of the mobile Internet. > What do you see as the biggest challenge, opportunity or > change that the mobile revolution brings? > > > * *A HUMAN RIGHT*? Is Internet access a fundamental human > right? Explain. Why? > > > * *THE INTERNET FIVE YEARS FROM NOW*: Intermediaries are at > work as the Internet grows and people seek security, > convenience, information filters, and so on. Five years from > now will the Internet be more open and accessible, about the > same, or less so? Explain. > > > * *ABOUT IGF: *Why is IGF important? How can it be improved? > > > * *YOUR HOPE FOR THE FUTURE*: What is your greatest hope for > the future of the Internet? > > > * *YOUR CONCERN FOR THE FUTURE*: What is your greatest fear or > concern for the future of the Internet? > > > * *IN ONE WORD*: Describe the future of the Internet in one word. > > * > *Have an excellent conference! I will not be in Vilnius due to > other obligations, but I hope to catch some of the action online! > > Best, > Janna > > -- > Janna Quitney Anderson > Director of Imagining the Internet > www.imaginingtheinternet.org > Associate Professor of Communications > Director of Internet Projects > School of Communications > Elon University > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 5 13:07:10 2010 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 13:07:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Invitation to participate now and/or in Vilnius In-Reply-To: <4C83CAF7.8070308@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, Thank you for your excellent suggestions. I also want you to know how much difference you make with all of your contributions to IGC and elsewhere. Your voice is vital, and you also inspire others to speak out. Best, Janna On 9/5/10 12:53 PM, "parminder" wrote: > Hi Janna > > That is a useful initiative. > > May I suggest you ask another question. > >> How is IGF going to change the world... I mean, really 'how', pl give a bit >> of step by step reasoning. >> > and maybe also > >> What is the Internet primarily to you - a market space, a space for social >> interactions, a means of information and knowledge, a possibility towards a >> better, more fair and just world, a space for fantasy, a space that is other >> than the 'real world', a space that enhances the 'real world' ...... may be >> a couple of other options. (What is the Internet to the people of course has >> an important bearing on how it should be governed.) >> > May give some useful insights. Thanks, and regards. Parminder > > > > On Sunday 05 September 2010 08:09 PM, Janna Anderson wrote: >> Re: [governance] Invitation to participate now and/or in Vilnius Hello to >> IGC participants, >> >> The Imagining the Internet Center at Elon University is sending four >> participants to IGF-Vilnius, where we are backing a number of workshops and >> DCs. Elon undergraduates Drew Smith, Sam Baranowski and Kirsten Bennett will >> be participating in four different workshops, and the leader of our >> delegation, Dr. Glenn Scott, a professor at Elon, will also be participating >> as a speaker at the meeting of the Dynamic Coalition for Core Values. >> >> Our team will also be quite busy collecting interviews, photos and video to >> post at http://www.imaginingtheinternet.org. They hope you will take the >> opportunity to participate in the IGF-Vilnius video survey. To get an idea of >> how it works, you can look at last year¹s results here: >> >>> http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_egypt/survey.xhtml >>> >>> We are proud to say that the US Library of Congress, our national repository >>> for knowledge, has begun adding the content of Imagining the Internet to its >>> digital archive. The contributions you make in participating in our surveys >>> are being documented not only to help inspire people to think about the >>> future today and inform policy but also to serve as a historic record of our >>> time as we work together to achieve the best evolution possible for human >>> communications and cooperation. >>> >>> We are still in the process of deciding what questions to ask this year. If >>> you would like to make suggestions, you can send them to me by replying to >>> this e-mail. >>> >>> Here are some questions that have been proposed as possibilities for this >>> year¹s survey so far: >>> >>> >>> * CLOUD COMPUTING is the primary emerging issue being discussed at this IGF. >>> What are the most important positives and negatives of cloud computing? >>> * >>> >>> >>> * Now a MOBILE INTERNET question: One reason cloud computing is predicted to >>> grow is the growth of the mobile Internet. What do you see as the biggest >>> challenge, opportunity or change that the mobile revolution brings? >>> * >>> >>> >>> * A HUMAN RIGHT? Is Internet access a fundamental human right? Explain. Why? >>> * >>> >>> >>> * THE INTERNET FIVE YEARS FROM NOW: Intermediaries are at work as the >>> Internet grows and people seek security, convenience, information filters, >>> and so on. Five years from now will the Internet be more open and >>> accessible, about the same, or less so? Explain. >>> * >>> >>> >>> * ABOUT IGF: Why is IGF important? How can it be improved? >>> * >>> >>> >>> * YOUR HOPE FOR THE FUTURE: What is your greatest hope for the future of the >>> Internet? >>> * >>> >>> >>> * YOUR CONCERN FOR THE FUTURE: What is your greatest fear or concern for the >>> future of the Internet? >>> * >>> >>> >>> * IN ONE WORD: Describe the future of the Internet in one word. >>> * >>> >>> Have an excellent conference! I will not be in Vilnius due to other >>> obligations, but I hope to catch some of the action online! >>> >>> Best, >>> Janna >>> >> >> -- >> 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) >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 5 13:28:08 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 19:28:08 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Invitation to participate now and/or in Vilnius References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Janna here are the questions I forwarded to the IGFSecrteariat I: Future of the IGF: 1. When the IGF gets an extended mandate until 2015, what are the main three issues which should be improved? 2. Would it make sense when the the conclusions of the chair/rapporteur of each the workshops and plenaries are summarized in two or three (short) messages (no longer than three lines per message) and published in one document as "IGF Messages from Vilnjus" (N.N. etc.) as alternastive to a negotiated text in form of a "declaration" or recommendations? 3. Do you have any proposal how the national and regional IGFs could and should be linked together in an informal network? 4. Should the IGF start to manage a database which could include, inter alia, international treaties and national legislation relevant for Internet Governance or best national practices? II: Future of Internet Governance: 1. Is there a need for an "internal multistakeholder Internet Governance mechanisms" within social networks when they are used by millions users? 2. How multistakeholder input, transparency and accountability can be strengthened in intergovernmental organisations dealing with Internet related issues (UN, UNESCO, WTO, WIPO, ITU, European Union, OECD, Council of Europe etc.) 3. Is there a risk for a fragmentation of the Internet either along language barriers (via iDNs) or via different infrastructure regulations (wired Internet vs. wirless Internet)? 4. If national security becomes a key point in Internet Governance, how the principle of "national sovereignty" can be executed in a borderless cyberspace? Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Janna Anderson [mailto:andersj at elon.edu] Gesendet: So 05.09.2010 19:07 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Betreff: Re: [governance] Invitation to participate now and/or in Vilnius Parminder, Thank you for your excellent suggestions. I also want you to know how much difference you make with all of your contributions to IGC and elsewhere. Your voice is vital, and you also inspire others to speak out. Best, Janna On 9/5/10 12:53 PM, "parminder" wrote: Hi Janna That is a useful initiative. May I suggest you ask another question. How is IGF going to change the world... I mean, really 'how', pl give a bit of step by step reasoning. and maybe also What is the Internet primarily to you - a market space, a space for social interactions, a means of information and knowledge, a possibility towards a better, more fair and just world, a space for fantasy, a space that is other than the 'real world', a space that enhances the 'real world' ...... may be a couple of other options. (What is the Internet to the people of course has an important bearing on how it should be governed.) May give some useful insights. Thanks, and regards. Parminder On Sunday 05 September 2010 08:09 PM, Janna Anderson wrote: Re: [governance] Invitation to participate now and/or in Vilnius Hello to IGC participants, The Imagining the Internet Center at Elon University is sending four participants to IGF-Vilnius, where we are backing a number of workshops and DCs. Elon undergraduates Drew Smith, Sam Baranowski and Kirsten Bennett will be participating in four different workshops, and the leader of our delegation, Dr. Glenn Scott, a professor at Elon, will also be participating as a speaker at the meeting of the Dynamic Coalition for Core Values. Our team will also be quite busy collecting interviews, photos and video to post at http://www.imaginingtheinternet.org . They hope you will take the opportunity to participate in the IGF-Vilnius video survey. To get an idea of how it works, you can look at last year's results here: http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_egypt/survey.xhtml We are proud to say that the US Library of Congress, our national repository for knowledge, has begun adding the content of Imagining the Internet to its digital archive. The contributions you make in participating in our surveys are being documented not only to help inspire people to think about the future today and inform policy but also to serve as a historic record of our time as we work together to achieve the best evolution possible for human communications and cooperation. We are still in the process of deciding what questions to ask this year. If you would like to make suggestions, you can send them to me by replying to this e-mail. Here are some questions that have been proposed as possibilities for this year's survey so far: * CLOUD COMPUTING is the primary emerging issue being discussed at this IGF. What are the most important positives and negatives of cloud computing? * * Now a MOBILE INTERNET question: One reason cloud computing is predicted to grow is the growth of the mobile Internet. What do you see as the biggest challenge, opportunity or change that the mobile revolution brings? * * A HUMAN RIGHT? Is Internet access a fundamental human right? Explain. Why? * * THE INTERNET FIVE YEARS FROM NOW: Intermediaries are at work as the Internet grows and people seek security, convenience, information filters, and so on. Five years from now will the Internet be more open and accessible, about the same, or less so? Explain. * * ABOUT IGF: Why is IGF important? How can it be improved? * * YOUR HOPE FOR THE FUTURE: What is your greatest hope for the future of the Internet? * * YOUR CONCERN FOR THE FUTURE: What is your greatest fear or concern for the future of the Internet? * * IN ONE WORD: Describe the future of the Internet in one word. * Have an excellent conference! I will not be in Vilnius due to other obligations, but I hope to catch some of the action online! Best, Janna -- 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Sep 5 13:49:57 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 22:49:57 +0500 Subject: [governance] Invitation to participate now and/or in Vilnius In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang, I will be taking your questions for brainstorming and discussion stimulation in the IGC Workshop No. 54: *No. 54. Innovative Internet Governance Ideas and Approaches - An Open Discussion Space * *When: Thursday, 16 September at 9:00 - 11:00 in Room 6* * * *(I*GF Theme: Development) where you will be allowed to freely share your ideas and opinions about Internet Governance that can possibly help change the world we live in today. Link to the workshop information page: ** http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2010View&wspid=54 *Workshop Description:* A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share positive ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the developing world utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for both developed and developing world participants. An example may be the ideas presented by Tim Berners-Lee at TED for Opening Data to the world that helped in providing concrete relief information on the ground during the Haiti earthquake crisis. Another idea may be Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis. *With the participation of all stakeholders*, including youth, the workshop will record the many positive ideas that evolve from this venue, measure the changes that they have enabled over time, and at the next IGF meeting identify which ideas had the greatest impact over the past 12 months since presented. *A round table open to all participants of the workshop.* The format will be 5 minutes given to each of the participants to share an existing or revolutionary idea. The Internet governance dimensions of each idea will also be explored. All the ideas will be recorded and categorized under various topics for measurement of impact over the following year. *There will be no formal panellists.* All participants will be given 3-5 minutes to share an idea. The moderator will be Fouad Bajwa. Participants are listed on the wiki at http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/Open_space_for_Internet_governance_ideas. This workshop was formerly titled "Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World". * Kindly let me know if you are participating so that we can arrange a list of participants before hand for record taking! If members from your organization or friends are participating, kindly inform them as well! *Organization:* Internet Governance Caucus *Contact Person:* Fouad Bajwa fouadbajwa at gmail.com 2010/9/5 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Janna > > here are the questions I forwarded to the IGFSecrteariat > > > > I: Future of the IGF: > > 1. When the IGF gets an extended mandate until 2015, what are the main > three issues which should be improved? > 2. Would it make sense when the the conclusions of the chair/rapporteur of > each the workshops and plenaries are summarized in two or three (short) > messages (no longer than three lines per message) and published in one > document as "IGF Messages from Vilnjus" (N.N. etc.) as alternastive to a > negotiated text in form of a "declaration" or recommendations? > 3. Do you have any proposal how the national and regional IGFs could and > should be linked together in an informal network? > 4. Should the IGF start to manage a database which could include, inter > alia, international treaties and national legislation relevant for Internet > Governance or best national practices? > > II: Future of Internet Governance: > 1. Is there a need for an "internal multistakeholder Internet Governance > mechanisms" within social networks when they are used by millions users? > 2. How multistakeholder input, transparency and accountability can be > strengthened in intergovernmental organisations dealing with Internet > related issues (UN, UNESCO, WTO, WIPO, ITU, European Union, OECD, Council of > Europe etc.) > 3. Is there a risk for a fragmentation of the Internet either along > language barriers (via iDNs) or via different infrastructure regulations > (wired Internet vs. wirless Internet)? > 4. If national security becomes a key point in Internet Governance, how the > principle of "national sovereignty" can be executed in a borderless > cyberspace? > > Wolfgang > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Janna Anderson [mailto:andersj at elon.edu] > Gesendet: So 05.09.2010 19:07 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > Betreff: Re: [governance] Invitation to participate now and/or in Vilnius > > > Parminder, > > Thank you for your excellent suggestions. > > I also want you to know how much difference you make with all of your > contributions to IGC and elsewhere. Your voice is vital, and you also > inspire others to speak out. > > Best, > Janna > > On 9/5/10 12:53 PM, "parminder" wrote: > > > > Hi Janna > > That is a useful initiative. > > May I suggest you ask another question. > > > > How is IGF going to change the world... I mean, really > 'how', pl give a bit of step by step reasoning. > > > > and maybe also > > > > What is the Internet primarily to you - a market space, a > space for social interactions, a means of information and knowledge, a > possibility towards a better, more fair and just world, a space for fantasy, > a space that is other than the 'real world', a space that enhances the 'real > world' ...... may be a couple of other options. (What is the Internet to > the people of course has an important bearing on how it should be governed.) > > > > May give some useful insights. Thanks, and regards. Parminder > > > > On Sunday 05 September 2010 08:09 PM, Janna Anderson wrote: > > > Re: [governance] Invitation to participate now and/or in > Vilnius Hello to IGC participants, > > The Imagining the Internet Center at Elon University is > sending four participants to IGF-Vilnius, where we are backing a number of > workshops and DCs. Elon undergraduates Drew Smith, Sam Baranowski and > Kirsten Bennett will be participating in four different workshops, and the > leader of our delegation, Dr. Glenn Scott, a professor at Elon, will also be > participating as a speaker at the meeting of the Dynamic Coalition for Core > Values. > > Our team will also be quite busy collecting interviews, > photos and video to post at http://www.imaginingtheinternet.org < > http://www.imaginingtheinternet.org/> . They hope you will take the > opportunity to participate in the IGF-Vilnius video survey. To get an idea > of how it works, you can look at last year's results here: > > > > > http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_egypt/survey.xhtml > > We are proud to say that the US Library of Congress, > our national repository for knowledge, has begun adding the content of > Imagining the Internet to its digital archive. The contributions you make in > participating in our surveys are being documented not only to help inspire > people to think about the future today and inform policy but also to serve > as a historic record of our time as we work together to achieve the best > evolution possible for human communications and cooperation. > > We are still in the process of deciding what > questions to ask this year. If you would like to make suggestions, you can > send them to me by replying to this e-mail. > > Here are some questions that have been proposed as > possibilities for this year's survey so far: > > > > > * CLOUD COMPUTING is the primary emerging > issue being discussed at this IGF. What are the most important positives and > negatives of cloud computing? > * > > > > > > > * Now a MOBILE INTERNET question: One reason > cloud computing is predicted to grow is the growth of the mobile Internet. > What do you see as the biggest challenge, opportunity or change that the > mobile revolution brings? > * > > > > > > > * A HUMAN RIGHT? Is Internet access a > fundamental human right? Explain. Why? > * > > > > > > > * THE INTERNET FIVE YEARS FROM NOW: > Intermediaries are at work as the Internet grows and people seek security, > convenience, information filters, and so on. Five years from now will the > Internet be more open and accessible, about the same, or less so? Explain. > * > > > > > > > * ABOUT IGF: Why is IGF important? How can it > be improved? > * > > > > > > > * YOUR HOPE FOR THE FUTURE: What is your > greatest hope for the future of the Internet? > * > > > > > > > * YOUR CONCERN FOR THE FUTURE: What is your > greatest fear or concern for the future of the Internet? > * > > > > > > > * IN ONE WORD: Describe the future of the > Internet in one word. > * > > > > Have an excellent conference! I will not be in > Vilnius due to other obligations, but I hope to catch some of the action > online! > > Best, > Janna > > > > > -- > 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 > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Sep 5 17:19:43 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 02:19:43 +0500 Subject: [governance] The future of the internet - A virtual counter-revolution Message-ID: A good read before heading down to the IGF forwarded by a friend to the Diplo IGCBP list: The future of the internet - A virtual counter-revolution The internet has been a great unifier of people, companies and online networks. Powerful forces are threatening to balkanise it Sep 2nd 2010 Source: The Economist Url: http://economist.com/node/16941635 THE first internet boom, a decade and a half ago, resembled a religious movement. Omnipresent cyber-gurus, often framed by colourful PowerPoint presentations reminiscent of stained glass, prophesied a digital paradise in which not only would commerce be frictionless and growth exponential, but democracy would be direct and the nation-state would no longer exist. One, John-Perry Barlow, even penned “A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace”. Even though all this sounded Utopian when it was preached, it reflected online reality pretty accurately. The internet was a wide-open space, a new frontier. For the first time, anyone could communicate electronically with anyone else—globally and essentially free of charge. Anyone was able to create a website or an online shop, which could be reached from anywhere in the world using a simple piece of software called a browser, without asking anyone else for permission. The control of information, opinion and commerce by governments—or big companies, for that matter—indeed appeared to be a thing of the past. “You have no sovereignty where we gather,” Mr Barlow wrote. The lofty discourse on “cyberspace” has long changed. Even the term now sounds passé. Today another overused celestial metaphor holds sway: the “cloud” is code for all kinds of digital services generated in warehouses packed with computers, called data centres, and distributed over the internet. Most of the talk, though, concerns more earthly matters: privacy, antitrust, Google’s woes in China, mobile applications, green information technology (IT). Only Apple’s latest iSomethings seem to inspire religious fervour, as they did again this week. Again, this is a fair reflection of what is happening on the internet. Fifteen years after its first manifestation as a global, unifying network, it has entered its second phase: it appears to be balkanising, torn apart by three separate, but related forces. First, governments are increasingly reasserting their sovereignty. Recently several countries have demanded that their law-enforcement agencies have access to e-mails sent from BlackBerry smart-phones. This week India, which had threatened to cut off BlackBerry service at the end of August, granted RIM, the device’s maker, an extra two months while authorities consider the firm’s proposal to comply. However, it has also said that it is going after other communication-service providers, notably Google and Skype. Second, big IT companies are building their own digital territories, where they set the rules and control or limit connections to other parts of the internet. Third, network owners would like to treat different types of traffic differently, in effect creating faster and slower lanes on the internet. It is still too early to say that the internet has fragmented into “internets”, but there is a danger that it may splinter along geographical and commercial boundaries. (The picture above is a visual representation of the “nationality” of traffic on the internet, created by the University of California’s Co-operative Association for Internet Data Analysis: America is in pink, Britain in dark blue, Italy in pale blue, Sweden in green and unknown countries in white.) Just as it was not preordained that the internet would become one global network where the same rules applied to everyone, everywhere, it is not certain that it will stay that way, says Kevin Werbach, a professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. To grasp why the internet might unravel, it is necessary to understand how, in the words of Mr Werbach, “it pulled itself together” in the first place. Even today, this seems like something of a miracle. In the physical world, most networks—railways, airlines, telephone systems—are collections of more or less connected islands. Before the internet and the world wide web came along, this balkanised model was also the norm online. For a long time, for instance, AOL and CompuServe would not even exchange e-mails. Economists point to “network effects” to explain why the internet managed to supplant these proprietary services. Everybody had strong incentives to join: consumers, companies and, most important, the networks themselves (the internet is in fact a “network of networks”). The more the internet grew, the greater the benefits became. And its founding fathers created the basis for this virtuous circle by making it easy for networks to hook up and for individuals to get wired. Yet economics alone do not explain why the internet rather than a proprietary service prevailed (as Microsoft did in software for personal computers, or PCs). One reason may be that the rapid rise of the internet, originally an obscure academic network funded by America’s Department of Defence, took everyone by surprise. “The internet was able to develop quietly and organically for years before it became widely known,” writes Jonathan Zittrain, a professor at Harvard University, in his 2008 book, “The Future of the Internet—And How To Stop It”. In other words, had telecoms firms, for instance, suspected how big it would become, they might have tried earlier to change its rules. Whatever the cause, the open internet has been a boon for humanity. It has not only allowed companies and other organisations of all sorts to become more efficient, but enabled other forms of production, notably “open source” methods, in which groups of people, often volunteers, all over the world develop products, mostly pieces of software, collectively. Individuals have access to more information than ever, communicate more freely and form groups of like-minded people more easily. Even more important, the internet is an open platform, rather than one built for a specific service, like the telephone network. Mr Zittrain calls it “generative”: people can tinker with it, creating new services and elbowing existing ones aside. Any young company can build a device or develop an application that connects to the internet, provided it follows certain, mostly technical conventions. In a more closed and controlled environment, an Amazon, a Facebook or a Google would probably never have blossomed as it did. Forces of fragmentation However, this very success has given rise to the forces that are now pulling the internet apart. The cracks are most visible along geographical boundaries. The internet is too important for governments to ignore. They are increasingly finding ways to enforce their laws in the digital realm. The most prominent is China’s “great firewall”. The Chinese authorities are using the same technology that companies use to stop employees accessing particular websites and online services. This is why Google at first decided to censor its Chinese search service: there was no other way to be widely accessible in the country. But China is by no means the only country erecting borders in cyberspace. The Australian government plans to build a firewall to block material showing the sexual abuse of children and other criminal or offensive content. The OpenNet Initiative, an advocacy group, lists more than a dozen countries that block internet content for political, social and security reasons. They do not need especially clever technology: governments go increasingly after dominant online firms because they are easy to get hold of. In April Google published the numbers of requests it had received from official agencies to remove content or provide information about users. Brazil led both counts (see chart 1). Not every request or barrier has a sinister motive. Australia’s firewall is a case in point, even if it is a clumsy way of enforcing the law. It would be another matter, however, if governments started tinkering with the internet’s address book, the Domain Name System (DNS). This allows the network to look up the computer on which a website lives. If a country started its own DNS, it could better control what people can see. Some fear this is precisely what China and others might do one day. To confuse matters, the DNS is already splintering for a good reason. It was designed for the Latin alphabet, which was fine when most internet users came from the West. But because more and more netizens live in other parts of the world—China boasts 420m—last October the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the body that oversees the DNS, allowed domain names entirely in other scripts. This makes things easier for people in, say, China, Japan or Russia, but marks another step towards the renationalisation of the internet. Many media companies have already gone one step further. They use another part of the internet’s address system, the “IP numbers” that identify computers on the network, to block access to content if consumers are not in certain countries. Try viewing a television show on Hulu, a popular American video service, from Europe and it will tell you: “We’re sorry, currently our video library can only be streamed within the United States.” Similarly, Spotify, a popular European music-streaming service, cannot be reached from America. Yet it is another kind of commercial attempt to carve up the internet that is causing more concern. Devotees of a unified cyberspace are worried that the online world will soon start looking as it did before the internet took over: a collection of more or less connected proprietary islands reminiscent of AOL and CompuServe. One of them could even become as dominant as Microsoft in PC software. “We’re heading into a war for control of the web,” Tim O’Reilly, an internet savant who heads O’Reilly Media, a publishing house, wrote late last year. “And in the end, it’s more than that, it’s a war against the web as an interoperable platform.” The trend to more closed systems is undeniable. Take Facebook, the web’s biggest social network. The site is a fast-growing, semi-open platform with more than 500m registered users. Its American contingent spends on average more than six hours a month on the site and less than two on Google. Users have identities specific to Facebook and communicate mostly via internal messages. The firm has its own rules, covering, for instance, which third-party applications may run and how personal data are dealt with. Apple is even more of a world apart. From its iPhone and iPad, people mostly get access to online services not through a conventional browser but via specialised applications available only from the company’s “App Store”. Granted, the store has lots of apps—about 250,000—but Apple nonetheless controls which ones make it onto its platform. It has used that power to keep out products it does not like, including things that can be construed as pornographic or that might interfere with its business, such as an app for Google’s telephone service. Apple’s press conference to show off its new wares on September 1st was streamed live over the internet but could be seen only on its own devices. Even Google can be seen as a platform unto itself, if a very open one. The world’s biggest search engine now offers dozens of services, from news aggregation to word processing, all of which are tied together and run on a global network of dozens of huge data-centres. Yet Google’s most important service is its online advertising platform, which serves most text-based ads on the web. Being the company’s main source of revenue, critics say, it is hardly a model of openness and transparency. There is no conspiracy behind the emergence of these platforms. Firms are in business to make money. And such phenomena as social networks and online advertising exhibit strong network effects, meaning that a dominant market leader is likely to emerge. What is more, most users these days are not experts, but average consumers, who want secure, reliable products. To create a good experience on mobile devices, which more and more people will use to get onto the internet, hardware, software and services must be more tightly integrated than on PCs. Net neutrality, or not? Discussion of these proprietary platforms is only beginning. A lot of ink, however, has already been spilt on another form of balkanisation: in the plumbing of the internet. Most of this debate, particularly in America, is about “net neutrality”. This is one of the internet’s founding principles: that every packet of data, regardless of its contents, should be treated the same way, and the best effort should always be made to forward it. Proponents of this principle want it to become law, out of concern that network owners will breach it if they can. Their nightmare is what Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia University, calls “the Tony Soprano vision of networking”, alluding to a television series about a mafia family. If operators were allowed to charge for better service, they could extort protection money from every website. Those not willing to pay for their data to be transmitted quickly would be left to crawl in the slow lane. “Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the internet such a success,” said Vinton Cerf, one of the network’s founding fathers (who now works for Google), at a hearing in Congress. Opponents of the enshrining of net neutrality in law—not just self-interested telecoms firms, but also experts like Dave Farber, another internet elder—argue that it would be counterproductive. Outlawing discrimination of any kind could discourage operators from investing to differentiate their networks. And given the rapid growth in file-sharing and video (see chart 2), operators may have good reason to manage data flows, lest other traffic be crowded out. The issue is not as black and white as it seems. The internet has never been as neutral as some would have it. Network providers do not guarantee a certain quality of service, but merely promise to do their best. That may not matter for personal e-mails, but it does for time-sensitive data such as video. What is more, large internet firms like Amazon and Google have long redirected traffic onto private fast lanes that bypass the public internet to speed up access to their websites. Whether such preferential treatment becomes more widespread, and even extortionary, will probably depend on the market and how it is regulated. It is telling that net neutrality has become far more politically controversial in America than it has elsewhere. This is a reflection of the relative lack of competition in America’s broadband market. In Europe and Japan, “open access” rules require network operators to lease parts of their networks to other firms on a wholesale basis, thus boosting competition. A study comparing broadband markets, published in 2009 by Harvard University’s Berkman Centre for Internet & Society, found that countries with such rules enjoy faster, cheaper broadband service than America, because the barrier to entry for new entrants is much lower. And if any access provider starts limiting what customers can do, they will defect to another. America’s operators have long insisted that open-access requirements would destroy their incentive to build fast, new networks: why bother if you will be forced to share it? After intense lobbying, America’s telecoms regulators bought this argument. But the lesson from elsewhere in the industrialised world is that it is not true. The result, however, is that America has a small number of powerful network operators, prompting concern that they will abuse their power unless they are compelled, by a net-neutrality law, to treat all traffic equally. Rather than trying to mandate fairness in this way—net neutrality is very hard to define or enforce—it makes more sense to address the underlying problem: the lack of competition. It should come as no surprise that the internet is being pulled apart on every level. “While technology can gravely wound governments, it rarely kills them,” Debora Spar, president of Barnard College at Columbia University, wrote several years ago in her book, “Ruling the Waves”. “This was all inevitable,” argues Chris Anderson, the editor of Wired, under the headline “The Web is Dead” in the September issue of the magazine. “A technology is invented, it spreads, a thousand flowers bloom, and then someone finds a way to own it, locking out others.” Yet predictions are hazardous, particularly in IT. Governments may yet realise that a freer internet is good not just for their economies, but also for their societies. Consumers may decide that it is unwise to entrust all their secrets to a single online firm such as Facebook, and decamp to less insular alternatives, such as Diaspora. Similarly, more open technology could also still prevail in the mobile industry. Android, Google’s smart-phone platform, which is less closed than Apple’s, is growing rapidly and gained more subscribers in America than the iPhone in the first half of this year. Intel and Nokia, the world’s biggest chipmaker and the biggest manufacturer of telephone handsets, are pushing an even more open platform called MeeGo. And as mobile devices and networks improve, a standards-based browser could become the dominant access software on the wireless internet as well. Stuck in the slow lane If, however, the internet continues to go the other way, this would be bad news. Should the network become a collection of proprietary islands accessed by devices controlled remotely by their vendors, the internet would lose much of its “generativity”, warns Harvard’s Mr Zittrain. Innovation would slow down and the next Amazon, Google or Facebook could simply be, well, Amazon, Google or Facebook. The danger is not that these islands become physically separated, says Andrew Odlyzko, a professor at the University of Minnesota. There is just too much value in universal connectivity, he argues. “The real question is how high the walls between these walled gardens will be.” Still, if the internet loses too much of its universality, cautions Mr Werbach of the Wharton School, it may indeed fall apart, just as world trade can collapse if there is too much protectionism. Theory demonstrates that interconnected networks such as the internet can grow quickly, he explains—but also that they can dissolve quickly. “This looks rather unlikely today, but if it happens, it will be too late to do anything about 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sun Sep 5 20:42:34 2010 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 17:42:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Governance issues in the Pacific ignored on the list Message-ID: <157681.43120.qm@web120520.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Hi all, Last week there was an Internet Governance meeting in Fiji, and as far as I can tell, the meeting was ignored on this list. I can't find a reference to it in the archives. Why? It seems a dereliction of the reason for this list that it ignores such a meeting. For more information including an ABC Radio report, see: Internet governance issues arise in Pacific An important workshop on Internet governance and communications technology was held in Fiji last week, but at least one invitee refused to attend due to Fiji's strict media censorship. http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/pacbeat/stories/201009/s3003339.htm Cheers David --------- David Goldstein email: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au web: http://davidgoldstein.tel/ http://goldsteinreport.com/ phone: +61 418 228 605 - mobile; +61 2 9665 5773 - office/home "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 5 23:55:03 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 23:25:03 -0430 Subject: [governance] Governance issues in the Pacific ignored on the In-Reply-To: <157681.43120.qm@web120520.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <157681.43120.qm@web120520.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C846617.3050503@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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Sep 5 23:59:00 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 06:59:00 +0300 Subject: [governance] Governance issues in the Pacific ignored on the In-Reply-To: <4C846617.3050503@gmail.com> References: <157681.43120.qm@web120520.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C846617.3050503@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: There are meetings nearly every week that do actual IG that we ignore, let alone the ones that do capacity building about IG. > > I agree that we should discuss the regional IG issues and meetings more on > this list... Can we get links to the reports/summaries/blogs of the regional > IGFs? http://eaigf.or.ke/files/EAIGF_2010_Report.pdf -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Sep 6 01:51:17 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 17:51:17 +1200 Subject: [governance] Governance issues in the Pacific ignored on the list In-Reply-To: <157681.43120.qm@web120520.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <157681.43120.qm@web120520.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear David, I was at the Internet Governance meeting in Fiji last week and it was a strategic time. I don't know why it's not on the list. Kind Regards, Sala On 9/6/10, David Goldstein wrote: > Hi all, > > Last week there was an Internet Governance meeting in Fiji, and as far as I > can > tell, the meeting was ignored on this list. I can't find a reference to it > in > the archives. > > Why? It seems a dereliction of the reason for this list that it ignores such > a > meeting. > > For more information including an ABC Radio report, see: > > Internet governance issues arise in Pacific > An important workshop on Internet governance and communications technology > was > held in Fiji last week, but at least one invitee refused to attend due to > Fiji's > strict media censorship. > http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/pacbeat/stories/201009/s3003339.htm > > Cheers > David > > > --------- > David Goldstein > email: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au > web: http://davidgoldstein.tel/ > http://goldsteinreport.com/ > phone: +61 418 228 605 - mobile; +61 2 9665 5773 - office/home > "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time > you > forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 6 01:58:09 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:28:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on IGF Message-ID: <4C8482F1.3030102@itforchange.net> Hi All Some of you may remember that CSTD had adopted a resolution for a CSTD WG on IGF improvements, which has now been adopted by the ECOSOC. Interestingly, there will be some activity regarding this at the Vilnius IGF. The following is an excerpt from a message circulated on the MAG list. CSTD Vice-Chair and MAG Member Frederic Riehl will hold lunchtime consultations on the CSTD Working Group on the IGF on 16 September. I presume he will send out additional information. The consultations will take place in the main meeting hall, starting at 1330. Good opportunity to make ourselves heard. 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 anriette at apc.org Mon Sep 6 03:01:48 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:01:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on IGF In-Reply-To: <4C8482F1.3030102@itforchange.net> References: <4C8482F1.3030102@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1283756508.1756.8.camel@anriette-laptop> Thanks for posting this Parminder... also worth noting that the idea of this working group came from civil society. Another instance where a civil society proposal (made at the CSTD this year) helped governments find a practical way forward. But this makes it very important for us to be there and make our voices heard, and to insist that civil society is well-represented on this working group. Anriette On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 11:28 +0530, parminder wrote: > Hi All > > Some of you may remember that CSTD had adopted a resolution for a CSTD > WG on IGF improvements, which has now been adopted by the ECOSOC. > > Interestingly, there will be some activity regarding this at the > Vilnius IGF. The following is an excerpt from a message circulated on > the MAG list. > > CSTD Vice-Chair and MAG Member Frederic Riehl will hold > lunchtime consultations on the CSTD Working Group on the IGF > on 16 September. I presume he will send out additional > information. The consultations will take place in the main > meeting hall, starting at 1330. > > Good opportunity to make ourselves heard. > > Parminder > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 6 03:28:32 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 12:58:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on IGF In-Reply-To: <1283756508.1756.8.camel@anriette-laptop> References: <4C8482F1.3030102@itforchange.net> <1283756508.1756.8.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: <4C849820.4010209@itforchange.net> On Monday 06 September 2010 12:31 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Thanks for posting this Parminder... also worth noting that the idea of > this working group came from civil society. Another instance where a > civil society proposal (made at the CSTD this year) helped governments > find a practical way forward. > Thanks, Anriette, for pointing to this important fact. In fact, the May 2009 session of CSTD witnessed some very important advocacy successes of civil society, which I think may not have been noticed and discussed enough. All the three most important elements of the CSTD resolution, now adopted by the ECOSOC, either came first from civil society (CS), or at the very least CS was one of the early active sponsors of these ideas. Not only that, CS was involved in some hectic back room lobbying to ensure that these important steps forward for global IG found their way into the draft, and then that they got support from key gov reps on the CSTD. These important issues or steps forward are: 1) An open consultation on enhanced cooperation or EC (to be held later this year) 2) A CSTD working group on IGF 3) A clear statement to the effect that EC and IGF are two *distinct* if complementary processes (which should put to rest efforts to present activities at the IGF as covering the meaning and intent of EC, something which has been attempted rather strongly in the last few years) Parminder > But this makes it very important for us to be there and make our voices > heard, and to insist that civil society is well-represented on this > working group. > > Anriette > > On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 11:28 +0530, parminder wrote: > >> Hi All >> >> Some of you may remember that CSTD had adopted a resolution for a CSTD >> WG on IGF improvements, which has now been adopted by the ECOSOC. >> >> Interestingly, there will be some activity regarding this at the >> Vilnius IGF. The following is an excerpt from a message circulated on >> the MAG list. >> >> CSTD Vice-Chair and MAG Member Frederic Riehl will hold >> lunchtime consultations on the CSTD Working Group on the IGF >> on 16 September. I presume he will send out additional >> information. The consultations will take place in the main >> meeting hall, starting at 1330. >> >> Good opportunity to make ourselves heard. >> >> Parminder >> plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> 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 tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Mon Sep 6 05:13:25 2010 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 10:13:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Invitation Message-ID: <6E054886DB744125B50DEF7E04F012D4@MTBJ> Français ci-dessous ---------------------------- Dear all, You are kindly invited to participate (physically or remotely) in the workshop organized by AFRALO in the IGF Vilnius venue. Workshop #: 61 Theme: New gTLDs and IDNs for Development Date: Tuesday 14 September 2010 Time slot: 09:00 - 11:00 Venue: Room 3 ---------------------------- Chers tous, Vous êtes cordialement invites à participer activement (physiquement ou à distance) au workshop organisé par AFRALO dans les lieux de l’IGF Vilnius. N° du Workshop : 61 Thème: Nouveaux gTLD et IDN pour le développement Date: Mardi 14 Septembre 2010 Créneau horaire: 09:00 - 11:00 Lieu: Salle 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 6 06:51:31 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 03:51:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Call for volunteers for IGF Remote Moderators In-Reply-To: <4C83028C.2040102@gmail.com> References: <4C83028C.2040102@gmail.com> Message-ID: <887612.76863.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Ginger Paque, Its Imran Ahmed Shah from Pakistan, first of all I woul like to introdude Urdu Internet Society. I have been trying to participate in IGF Meetings since last year, but could not arrange to travel; however, I had been attending them remotely. I am actively reviewing mailing list (governance at lists.cpsr.org) and also have participated in different discussions, voting and surveys conducted by IGF Coordinators.   On behalf of Urdu Internet Society (UISoc.org), I would to partcipate in IGF meetings as a Remote Moderator on the following Workshops, you are requested to please guide me in this regards if I would like the me moderator for the following meetings. Please also inform about further detail. DAY 1 : Tuesday, 14 September 2010     09:00-11:00         61. New gTLD and IDNs for development: Importance and Obstacles DAY 2 : Wednesday, 15 September 2010     09:00 - 11-00         67. Developing Civil Society and Youth Participation in Internet Governance in Asia DAY 2 : Wednesday, 15 September 2010     11:30 - 13-30         D.C.7: Dynamic Coalition on open Standards DAY 3 : Thursday, 16 September 2010     11:30 - 13:30         D.C.2: Dynamic Coalition for a Global Open Localization Platform Thanks Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah 0092 300 4130617 imran at uisoc.org ________________________________ From: Ginger Paque To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" ; igf at unog.ch; Bernard Sadaka ; Marilia Maciel ; Raquel Gatto ; Ginger Paque Sent: Sun, 5 September, 2010 7:38:04 Subject: [governance] Call for volunteers for IGF Remote Moderators If you will be present at the IGF in Vilnius, and are willing and able to act as a Remote Moderator on a workshop, please review the spreadsheet at: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AvbMmPpvFluTdG9HREpjOERxempiM1hzbG51M3dNN3c&authkey=CJyH3MkN&hl=en&pli=1#gid=0 If you are comfortable with a computer and with easy interaction on a panel, we can help you prepare online or in Vilnius, as the function of remote moderator is similar to chat facilitator. Please review the list at the above link to find a day and time you are free, and choose a workshop topic with which you are familiar. It will be helpful for the panel and the remote participant interaction if you have a grasp of the general issue to be discussed. Please let me (Ginger) know by private email if you can volunteer, and we will help match up workshops and volunteer remote moderators. This is a valuable contribution to the IGF process, and a way for you to be actively involved  in the IGF. Please write me gpaque at gmail.com if you would like to join us. I look forward to hearing from you. Best, Ginger for the IGF Remote Participation Working Group -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 6 11:33:20 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:33:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear friends I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community as important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil society organisations, including represenations of organisations from developing countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving the event to New York would create additional costs and logistic problems for them which would result in lower participation of civil society organisations. This would certainly undermine the multistakeholder nature of the WSIS implementaiton process. Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more important political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN acitvities in New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and would have difficulties to get the needed public attention. Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its annual Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency in Budapest. Regards Wolfgang Kleinwächter ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 6 11:47:38 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 12:47:38 -0300 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4C850D1A.3080608@cafonso.ca> Adding to Wolf's quite relevant worries, let us recall as well that getting a visa to the USA continues to be a challenge for citizens in all developing countries. frt rgds --c.a. On 09/06/2010 12:33 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Dear friends > > I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community as important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil society organisations, including represenations of organisations from developing countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving the event to New York would create additional costs and logistic problems for them which would result in lower participation of civil society organisations. This would certainly undermine the multistakeholder nature of the WSIS implementaiton process. > > Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more important political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN acitvities in New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and would have difficulties to get the needed public attention. > > Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its annual Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency in Budapest. > > > Regards > > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Mon Sep 6 11:58:44 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 11:58:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <4C850D1A.3080608@cafonso.ca> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4C850D1A.3080608@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Unfortunately, these Visa challenges extend to the Schengen area for developing countries as well. Switzerland joined the Schengen Agreement in 2008. Costs of travel from Latin America and the Caribbean to Europe remain prohibitive and the cheapest routes are generally through the US anyway. It might also be just a good time as any to advocate for a move of WSIS to a relatively Visa free area or country. Panama, therefore, sounds pretty good as a Venue if these things are even still being considered. On 9/6/10, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Adding to Wolf's quite relevant worries, let us recall as well that > getting a visa to the USA continues to be a challenge for citizens in > all developing countries. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > > On 09/06/2010 12:33 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> Dear friends >> >> I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of the >> WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation >> forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in >> particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community as >> important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil >> society organisations, including represenations of organisations from >> developing countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving >> the event to New York would create additional costs and logistic problems >> for them which would result in lower participation of civil society >> organisations. This would certainly undermine the multistakeholder nature >> of the WSIS implementaiton process. >> >> Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the >> important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more important >> political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN acitvities >> in New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and would >> have difficulties to get the needed public attention. >> >> Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its annual >> Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency in >> Budapest. >> >> >> Regards >> >> Wolfgang Kleinwächter >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > -- 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Mon Sep 6 12:19:53 2010 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 12:19:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4C850D1A.3080608@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Don't they usually hold these events in UN cities? That means Geneva, Nairobi, New York, Vienna, Bangkok, Santiago, Addis Ababa and Beirut. Is there another one in a visa free country that is easy to get to? Jacqueline 2010/9/6 Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google > Unfortunately, these Visa challenges extend to the Schengen area for > developing countries as well. Switzerland joined the Schengen > Agreement in 2008. > > Costs of travel from Latin America and the Caribbean to Europe remain > prohibitive and the cheapest routes are generally through the US > anyway. > > It might also be just a good time as any to advocate for a move of > WSIS to a relatively Visa free area or country. > > Panama, therefore, sounds pretty good as a Venue if these things are > even still being considered. > > On 9/6/10, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > Adding to Wolf's quite relevant worries, let us recall as well that > > getting a visa to the USA continues to be a challenge for citizens in > > all developing countries. > > > > frt rgds > > > > --c.a. > > > > > > On 09/06/2010 12:33 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > >> Dear friends > >> > >> I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of > the > >> WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation > >> forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in > >> particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community > as > >> important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil > >> society organisations, including represenations of organisations from > >> developing countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving > >> the event to New York would create additional costs and logistic > problems > >> for them which would result in lower participation of civil society > >> organisations. This would certainly undermine the multistakeholder > nature > >> of the WSIS implementaiton process. > >> > >> Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the > >> important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more important > >> political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN > acitvities > >> in New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and would > >> have difficulties to get the needed public attention. > >> > >> Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its > annual > >> Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency in > >> Budapest. > >> > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Wolfgang Kleinwächter > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > > > > -- > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Sep 6 12:27:16 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 09:27:16 -0700 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Vancouver... (we have a lot of spare post-Olympics hotel capacity at the moment ;-) M -----Original Message----- From: Jacqueline Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 9:20 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google Subject: Re: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 Don't they usually hold these events in UN cities? That means Geneva, Nairobi, New York, Vienna, Bangkok, Santiago, Addis Ababa and Beirut. Is there another one in a visa free country that is easy to get to? Jacqueline 2010/9/6 Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google Unfortunately, these Visa challenges extend to the Schengen area for developing countries as well. Switzerland joined the Schengen Agreement in 2008. Costs of travel from Latin America and the Caribbean to Europe remain prohibitive and the cheapest routes are generally through the US anyway. It might also be just a good time as any to advocate for a move of WSIS to a relatively Visa free area or country. Panama, therefore, sounds pretty good as a Venue if these things are even still being considered. On 9/6/10, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Adding to Wolf's quite relevant worries, let us recall as well that > getting a visa to the USA continues to be a challenge for citizens in > all developing countries. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > > On 09/06/2010 12:33 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> Dear friends >> >> I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of the >> WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation >> forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in >> particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community as >> important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil >> society organisations, including represenations of organisations from >> developing countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving >> the event to New York would create additional costs and logistic problems >> for them which would result in lower participation of civil society >> organisations. This would certainly undermine the multistakeholder nature >> of the WSIS implementaiton process. >> >> Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the >> important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more important >> political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN acitvities >> in New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and would >> have difficulties to get the needed public attention. >> >> Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its annual >> Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency in >> Budapest. >> >> >> Regards >> >> Wolfgang Kleinwächter >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 6 12:30:52 2010 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 12:30:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A Canadian visa is more expensive and harder to get for me in Trinidad and Tobago than a US visa. Jacqueline On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Vancouver... (we have a lot of spare post-Olympics hotel capacity at the > moment ;-) > > M > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Jacqueline Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] > *Sent:* Monday, September 06, 2010 9:20 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google > *Subject:* Re: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 > > Don't they usually hold these events in UN cities? That means Geneva, > Nairobi, New York, Vienna, Bangkok, Santiago, Addis Ababa and Beirut. Is > there another one in a visa free country that is easy to get to? > Jacqueline > > 2010/9/6 Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google > >> Unfortunately, these Visa challenges extend to the Schengen area for >> developing countries as well. Switzerland joined the Schengen >> Agreement in 2008. >> >> Costs of travel from Latin America and the Caribbean to Europe remain >> prohibitive and the cheapest routes are generally through the US >> anyway. >> >> It might also be just a good time as any to advocate for a move of >> WSIS to a relatively Visa free area or country. >> >> Panama, therefore, sounds pretty good as a Venue if these things are >> even still being considered. >> >> On 9/6/10, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> > Adding to Wolf's quite relevant worries, let us recall as well that >> > getting a visa to the USA continues to be a challenge for citizens in >> > all developing countries. >> > >> > frt rgds >> > >> > --c.a. >> > >> > >> > On 09/06/2010 12:33 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> >> Dear friends >> >> >> >> I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of >> the >> >> WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation >> >> forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in >> >> particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community >> as >> >> important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil >> >> society organisations, including represenations of organisations from >> >> developing countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. >> Moving >> >> the event to New York would create additional costs and logistic >> problems >> >> for them which would result in lower participation of civil society >> >> organisations. This would certainly undermine the multistakeholder >> nature >> >> of the WSIS implementaiton process. >> >> >> >> Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the >> >> important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more >> important >> >> political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN >> acitvities >> >> in New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and >> would >> >> have difficulties to get the needed public attention. >> >> >> >> Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its >> annual >> >> Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency in >> >> Budapest. >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Wolfgang Kleinwächter >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 >> > >> >> -- >> 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 >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 6 12:35:00 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 12:35:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, Speaking as an academic for whom I admit New York City is convenient and would lowering my personal costs and logistics hassles, we can agree that UN venue decisions have impacts that may vary depending upon where one is coming from. Geneva is a fine (expensive) city, New York has its virtues too. A move to New York for wsis 2011 would to me signal a mainstreaming of IG issues wthin UN system; as would establishment of a permanent secretariat in yet a 3rd (developing?) location. But Wolfgang, the argument that it would be more difficult to get media/public attention - in New York City - doesn't make much sense to me. In principle it should be easier. There's certainly plenty of media outlets hanging around already looking for things to talk and write about. Anyway, as I suggested before, while civil society has some success at substantive issues around IG, venue/location decisions I am afraid remain power politics/business as usual choices. Lee ________________________________________ From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 11:33 AM To: wsis-info at itu.int Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 Dear friends I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community as important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil society organisations, including represenations of organisations from developing countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving the event to New York would create additional costs and logistic problems for them which would result in lower participation of civil society organisations. This would certainly undermine the multistakeholder nature of the WSIS implementaiton process. Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more important political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN acitvities in New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and would have difficulties to get the needed public attention. Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its annual Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency in Budapest. Regards Wolfgang Kleinwächter ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 6 12:43:35 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 17:43:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: I totally agree with Carlos and let me drive the point home by noting that the WSIS is not really free. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) 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 siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble Royal, Entrée A,7e niveau. 2010/9/6 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Dear friends > > I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of the > WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation > forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in > particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community as > important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil society > organisations, including represenations of organisations from developing > countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving the event to > New York would create additional costs and logistic problems for them which > would result in lower participation of civil society organisations. This > would certainly undermine the multistakeholder nature of the WSIS > implementaiton process. > > Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the > important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more important > political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN acitvities in > New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and would have > difficulties to get the needed public attention. > > Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its annual > Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency in > Budapest. > > > Regards > > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > 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 Mon Sep 6 12:44:40 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 12:44:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4C850D1A.3080608@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: If we really to go down this road of cities being the most easy to get to the two cities which are perhaps the most well connected (most direct flights) for everyone are: 1. New York (all airports), 2. London (all airports) with Los Angeles (LAX) as the primary US hub for the Asia Pacific region and Frankfurt (London alternative, especially for Europe bound flights via the US and from Asia) not too far behind. Only New York, among these, looks like a fit (a UN city) with London, for most of the Commonwealth, being next in line because of the relatively Visa-free nature of access (although this is rapidly changing). So I guess the WSIS Forum organizers knew what they wereb doing? On 9/6/10, Jacqueline Morris wrote: > Don't they usually hold these events in UN cities? That means Geneva, > Nairobi, New York, Vienna, Bangkok, Santiago, Addis Ababa and Beirut. Is > there another one in a visa free country that is easy to get to? > Jacqueline > > 2010/9/6 Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google > >> Unfortunately, these Visa challenges extend to the Schengen area for >> developing countries as well. Switzerland joined the Schengen >> Agreement in 2008. >> >> Costs of travel from Latin America and the Caribbean to Europe remain >> prohibitive and the cheapest routes are generally through the US >> anyway. >> >> It might also be just a good time as any to advocate for a move of >> WSIS to a relatively Visa free area or country. >> >> Panama, therefore, sounds pretty good as a Venue if these things are >> even still being considered. >> >> On 9/6/10, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> > Adding to Wolf's quite relevant worries, let us recall as well that >> > getting a visa to the USA continues to be a challenge for citizens in >> > all developing countries. >> > >> > frt rgds >> > >> > --c.a. >> > >> > >> > On 09/06/2010 12:33 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> >> Dear friends >> >> >> >> I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of >> the >> >> WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation >> >> forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in >> >> particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community >> as >> >> important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil >> >> society organisations, including represenations of organisations from >> >> developing countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. >> >> Moving >> >> the event to New York would create additional costs and logistic >> problems >> >> for them which would result in lower participation of civil society >> >> organisations. This would certainly undermine the multistakeholder >> nature >> >> of the WSIS implementaiton process. >> >> >> >> Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the >> >> important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more >> >> important >> >> political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN >> acitvities >> >> in New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and >> >> would >> >> have difficulties to get the needed public attention. >> >> >> >> Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its >> annual >> >> Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency in >> >> Budapest. >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Wolfgang Kleinwächter >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 >> > >> >> -- >> 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 >> > -- 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 ca at cafonso.ca Mon Sep 6 12:44:53 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 13:44:53 -0300 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C851A85.9030404@cafonso.ca> For Canadians like you and me, quite easy, Michael -- but Canadian visa restrictions for non-Canadians from developing countries are also quite hard... However, Vancouver is sensational! :) --c.a. On 09/06/2010 01:27 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Vancouver... (we have a lot of spare post-Olympics hotel capacity at the > moment ;-) > M > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Jacqueline Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] > *Sent:* Monday, September 06, 2010 9:20 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google > *Subject:* Re: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 > > Don't they usually hold these events in UN cities? That means > Geneva, Nairobi, New York, Vienna, Bangkok, Santiago, Addis Ababa > and Beirut. Is there another one in a visa free country that is easy > to get to? > Jacqueline > > 2010/9/6 Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google > > > Unfortunately, these Visa challenges extend to the Schengen area for > developing countries as well. Switzerland joined the Schengen > Agreement in 2008. > > Costs of travel from Latin America and the Caribbean to Europe > remain > prohibitive and the cheapest routes are generally through the US > anyway. > > It might also be just a good time as any to advocate for a move of > WSIS to a relatively Visa free area or country. > > Panama, therefore, sounds pretty good as a Venue if these things are > even still being considered. > > On 9/6/10, Carlos A. Afonso > wrote: > > Adding to Wolf's quite relevant worries, let us recall as > well that > > getting a visa to the USA continues to be a challenge for > citizens in > > all developing countries. > > > > frt rgds > > > > --c.a. > > > > > > On 09/06/2010 12:33 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > >> Dear friends > >> > >> I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to > New York of the > >> WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS > implementation > >> forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will > weaken in > >> particular the involvement of civil society and the academic > community as > >> important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number > of civil > >> society organisations, including represenations of > organisations from > >> developing countries, are based in Geneva or not far from > Geneva. Moving > >> the event to New York would create additional costs and > logistic problems > >> for them which would result in lower participation of civil > society > >> organisations. This would certainly undermine the > multistakeholder nature > >> of the WSIS implementaiton process. > >> > >> Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be > that the > >> important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of > more important > >> political and security issues which dominate the day to day > UN acitvities > >> in New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another > conference" and would > >> have difficulties to get the needed public attention. > >> > >> Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union > has its annual > >> Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian > Presidency in > >> Budapest. > >> > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Wolfgang Kleinwächter > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > > > > -- > 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 > > -- 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Sep 6 12:52:34 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 22:22:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4C850D1A.3080608@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: 2010/9/6 Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google > Unfortunately, these Visa challenges extend to the Schengen area for > developing countries as well. Switzerland joined the Schengen > Agreement in 2008. > > Costs of travel from Latin America and the Caribbean to Europe remain > prohibitive and the cheapest routes are generally through the US > anyway. > > It might also be just a good time as any to advocate for a move of > WSIS to a relatively Visa free area or country. > India would be a very good choice, (it is not visa-free, but its visa rules aren't arbitrary either) and India would be relatively balanced on the WSIS deliberations. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M > > Panama, therefore, sounds pretty good as a Venue if these things are > even still being considered. > > On 9/6/10, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > Adding to Wolf's quite relevant worries, let us recall as well that > > getting a visa to the USA continues to be a challenge for citizens in > > all developing countries. > > > > frt rgds > > > > --c.a. > > > > > > On 09/06/2010 12:33 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > >> Dear friends > >> > >> I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of > the > >> WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation > >> forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in > >> particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community > as > >> important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil > >> society organisations, including represenations of organisations from > >> developing countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving > >> the event to New York would create additional costs and logistic > problems > >> for them which would result in lower participation of civil society > >> organisations. This would certainly undermine the multistakeholder > nature > >> of the WSIS implementaiton process. > >> > >> Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the > >> important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more important > >> political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN > acitvities > >> in New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and would > >> have difficulties to get the needed public attention. > >> > >> Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its > annual > >> Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency in > >> Budapest. > >> > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Wolfgang Kleinwächter > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > > > > -- > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 6 13:01:41 2010 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 18:01:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <7FF788252BF442D5BFB0501E447D95E9@MTBJ> I fully agree with you Wolfgang ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 : "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Envoyé : lundi 6 septembre 2010 16:33 À : wsis-info at itu.int Cc : governance at lists.cpsr.org Objet : [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 Dear friends I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community as important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil society organisations, including represenations of organisations from developing countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving the event to New York would create additional costs and logistic problems for them which would result in lower participation of civil society organisations. This would certainly undermine the multistakeholder nature of the WSIS implementaiton process. Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more important political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN acitvities in New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and would have difficulties to get the needed public attention. Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its annual Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency in Budapest. Regards Wolfgang Kleinwächter ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: 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 Mon Sep 6 14:04:43 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 20:04:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi, We can toss around ideas about where an ideal venue that causes the least hassle for the most people might be, but the WSIS Forum will be held in either New York or Geneva. Lee is probably right about mainstreaming; the question is, on what/whose terms? Personally, I have never noticed that all that many CS people actually attend the WSIS Forums in the first place; they're certainly not much in evidence on the panels, which are largely selected by ITU on an "expert" rather than "stakeholder" basis. But to the extent that IG/ICT-oriented CS people do wish to attend, one would think there's probably greater synergies and cost effectiveness for them in keeping it in Geneva during the same two week bloc as the IGF consultation (assuming those remain in Geneva) and the CSTD. For CS people working in the other areas that are in the UN NY's bailiwick, e.g. disarmament et al, NY is obviously more convenient, but would they be all that interested enough in the typical WSIS Forum topics to attend? Unclear. And I suppose one could widen the optic further and wonder whether this might fit in with larger discussions about the management of ICT-related activities connected to DESA… Should there be an IGC response to ITU's "Open Consultation" (means we can use their website, not enter the building), or would consensus being difficult to achieve? Best, Bill On Sep 6, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > Speaking as an academic for whom I admit New York City is convenient and would lowering my personal costs and logistics hassles, we can agree that UN venue decisions have impacts that may vary depending upon where one is coming from. Geneva is a fine (expensive) city, New York has its virtues too. > > A move to New York for wsis 2011 would to me signal a mainstreaming of IG issues wthin UN system; as would establishment of a permanent secretariat in yet a 3rd (developing?) location. > > But Wolfgang, the argument that it would be more difficult to get media/public attention - in New York City - doesn't make much sense to me. In principle it should be easier. There's certainly plenty of media outlets hanging around already looking for things to talk and write about. > > Anyway, as I suggested before, while civil society has some success at substantive issues around IG, venue/location decisions I am afraid remain power politics/business as usual choices. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 11:33 AM > To: wsis-info at itu.int > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 > > Dear friends > > I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community as important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil society organisations, including represenations of organisations from developing countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving the event to New York would create additional costs and logistic problems for them which would result in lower participation of civil society organisations. This would certainly undermine the multistakeholder nature of the WSIS implementaiton process. > > Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more important political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN acitvities in New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and would have difficulties to get the needed public attention. > > Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its annual Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency in Budapest. > > > Regards > > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Sep 6 14:56:00 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 00:26:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: 2010/9/6 William Drake > Hi, > > We can toss around ideas about where an ideal venue that causes the least > hassle for the most people might be, but the WSIS Forum will be held in > either New York or Geneva. Lee is probably right about mainstreaming; the > question is, on what/whose terms? Personally, I have never noticed that all > that many CS people actually attend the WSIS Forums in the first place; > they're certainly not much in evidence on the panels, which are largely > selected by ITU on an "expert" rather than "stakeholder" basis. But to the > extent that IG/ICT-oriented CS people do wish to attend, one would think > there's probably greater synergies and cost effectiveness for them in > keeping it in Geneva during the same two week bloc as the IGF consultation > (assuming those remain in Geneva) and the CSTD. For CS people working in > the other areas that are in the UN NY's bailiwick, e.g. disarmament et al, > NY is obviously more convenient, but would they be all that interested > enough in the typical WSIS Forum topics to attend? Unclear. And I suppose > one could widen the optic further and wonder whether this might fit in with > larger discussions about the management of ICT-related activities connected > to DESA… > > Should there be an IGC response to ITU's "Open Consultation" (means we can > use their website, not enter the building), or would consensus being > difficult to achieve? > If CS does not assert its stakes in WSIS process, the WSIS panels could be engineered to lead to conclusions that the ITU desires, which would be a step back from the progress that the IGF has made. There needs to be an IGC response. Also, IGC could reach out to fair and neutral international organizations to object to and alter the process. Sivasubramanian M > Best, > > Bill > > On Sep 6, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Speaking as an academic for whom I admit New York City is convenient and > would lowering my personal costs and logistics hassles, we can agree that UN > venue decisions have impacts that may vary depending upon where one is > coming from. Geneva is a fine (expensive) city, New York has its virtues > too. > > > > A move to New York for wsis 2011 would to me signal a mainstreaming of IG > issues wthin UN system; as would establishment of a permanent secretariat in > yet a 3rd (developing?) location. > > > > But Wolfgang, the argument that it would be more difficult to get > media/public attention - in New York City - doesn't make much sense to me. > In principle it should be easier. There's certainly plenty of media outlets > hanging around already looking for things to talk and write about. > > > > Anyway, as I suggested before, while civil society has some success at > substantive issues around IG, venue/location decisions I am afraid remain > power politics/business as usual choices. > > > > Lee > > ________________________________________ > > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [ > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 11:33 AM > > To: wsis-info at itu.int > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 > > > > Dear friends > > > > I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of > the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation > forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in > particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community as > important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil society > organisations, including represenations of organisations from developing > countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving the event to > New York would create additional costs and logistic problems for them which > would result in lower participation of civil society organisations. This > would certainly undermine the multistakeholder nature of the WSIS > implementaiton process. > > > > Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the > important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more important > political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN acitvities in > New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and would have > difficulties to get the needed public attention. > > > > Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its > annual Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency > in Budapest. > > > > > > Regards > > > > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 gpaque at gmail.com Mon Sep 6 15:11:24 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 14:41:24 -0430 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4C853CDC.7000100@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 Mon Sep 6 15:23:19 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 21:23:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Hi Just read the ICC's statement, which states in part, "The WSIS action lines Forum events in Geneva have drawn upon the fact that many key organizations are located in Geneva, and the participation of many stakeholders, business included, has been facilitated by the fact that other WSIS related activities take place around the same dates. This has enabled participation by many because it took into account the limited time, financial and human resources of many across stakeholder groups. Organizing the WSIS action lines Forum 2011 in New York risks decreasing participation because it would require extensive travel for those participating in the other WSIS related activities in May in Geneva. Feedback from ICC BASIS members and other stakeholders indicates that obtaining visas for the US is extremely difficult for many particularly from developing countries. This would in turn decrease the range of participants. ICC BASIS supports having the WSIS action lines Forum 2011 hosted in Geneva, or by the next lead facilitator, UNESCO in Paris." http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/ICC_BASIS_stmt_re_WSIS_Forum_2011_venue_FINAL_6Sept10.pdf Is this a reasonable position from an IGC perspective…? Best, Bill On Sep 6, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > 2010/9/6 William Drake > Hi, > > We can toss around ideas about where an ideal venue that causes the least hassle for the most people might be, but the WSIS Forum will be held in either New York or Geneva. Lee is probably right about mainstreaming; the question is, on what/whose terms? Personally, I have never noticed that all that many CS people actually attend the WSIS Forums in the first place; they're certainly not much in evidence on the panels, which are largely selected by ITU on an "expert" rather than "stakeholder" basis. But to the extent that IG/ICT-oriented CS people do wish to attend, one would think there's probably greater synergies and cost effectiveness for them in keeping it in Geneva during the same two week bloc as the IGF consultation (assuming those remain in Geneva) and the CSTD. For CS people working in the other areas that are in the UN NY's bailiwick, e.g. disarmament et al, NY is obviously more convenient, but would they be all that interested enough in the typical WSIS Forum topics to attend? Unclear. And I suppose one could widen the optic further and wonder whether this might fit in with larger discussions about the management of ICT-related activities connected to DESA… > > Should there be an IGC response to ITU's "Open Consultation" (means we can use their website, not enter the building), or would consensus being difficult to achieve? > > If CS does not assert its stakes in WSIS process, the WSIS panels could be engineered to lead to conclusions that the ITU desires, which would be a step back from the progress that the IGF has made. > > There needs to be an IGC response. Also, IGC could reach out to fair and neutral international organizations to object to and alter the process. > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > Best, > > Bill > > On Sep 6, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Speaking as an academic for whom I admit New York City is convenient and would lowering my personal costs and logistics hassles, we can agree that UN venue decisions have impacts that may vary depending upon where one is coming from. Geneva is a fine (expensive) city, New York has its virtues too. > > > > A move to New York for wsis 2011 would to me signal a mainstreaming of IG issues wthin UN system; as would establishment of a permanent secretariat in yet a 3rd (developing?) location. > > > > But Wolfgang, the argument that it would be more difficult to get media/public attention - in New York City - doesn't make much sense to me. In principle it should be easier. There's certainly plenty of media outlets hanging around already looking for things to talk and write about. > > > > Anyway, as I suggested before, while civil society has some success at substantive issues around IG, venue/location decisions I am afraid remain power politics/business as usual choices. > > > > Lee > > ________________________________________ > > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 11:33 AM > > To: wsis-info at itu.int > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 > > > > Dear friends > > > > I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community as important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil society organisations, including represenations of organisations from developing countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving the event to New York would create additional costs and logistic problems for them which would result in lower participation of civil society organisations. This would certainly undermine the multistakeholder nature of the WSIS implementaiton process. > > > > Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more important political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN acitvities in New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and would have difficulties to get the needed public attention. > > > > Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its annual Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency in Budapest. > > > > > > Regards > > > > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > *********************************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 6 15:34:14 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 21:34:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <4C850D1A.3080608@cafonso.ca> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4C850D1A.3080608@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <1283801654.1920.154.camel@anriette-laptop> I want to echo the concern expressed around having the WSIS Forum 2011 in New York. Schengen visas are not easy to get, but they are still easier to get than US visas, and Schengen countries do not refuse visas nearly as frequently as the US does. Swiss Schengen visas are generally faster and easier to get than other Schengen visas. As far as cost of travel is concerned, while NY is cheaper for people from the Americas it is more expensive for almost everyone else. Aside from cost, and visas, there are also two other factors to consider: - synchronising and co-location with other meetings - proximity of relevant institutions While it is good to think of such events having rotating venues, we need to remember that it is important to have them in places where relevant institutions are based. The UN institutions most actively involved in WSIS implementation are UNESCO and the ITU. Also active in their fields have been WHO and FAO (in Rome). Add to that UNCTAD's CSTD and the IGF secretariat, and WIPO and it makes sense to have these meetings in Geneva, or, if UNESCO is hosting, in Paris. At least Paris is close enough for those of us who have to travel from far away to then be able to also attend the CSTD and IGF events in Geneva. If all these events are moved to New York it will just escalate costs as Geneva and Paris-based UN staff would have to travel en mass. Perhaps having the WSIS forum in NY might place follow-up it higher on the intergovernmental agenda... but I am not convinced. The UN ICT Task Force held meetings in New York in the early 2000s, and, most of the really engaged UN personnel (outside of the Task Force secretariat and UNDP which is no longer really engaged) were those that traveled from Geneva. As far as civil society was concerned.. there were loads of North Americans, a sprinkling of Latin Americans, but very few Africans and Asians. It also depends what else is happening.. whether ECOSOC is sitting or not. The WSIS forum has had relatively good civil society participation as UNESCO has sponsored travel... added to that UNCTAD's efforts to bring civil society to the CSTD has meant that there is often a substantial community in Geneva in May. APC and some of our partners are planning to also start attending Human Rights Council meetings.. also in Geneva. Why this change now? What are the real behind-the-scenes goals? Whatever they are... they are certainly not to maximise civil society participation. I also doubt that it will increase developing country government participation...we are just getting to a point where we are able to engage with Geneva-based government representatives. It has taken years for those government reps. who have not been part of the WSIS-process to grasp the issues. Geneva-based developing country representatives at UNCTAD, WTO and WIPO are increasingly focusing on ICT issues. Let's build on this rather than move the event elsewhere. Anriette On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 12:47 -0300, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Adding to Wolf's quite relevant worries, let us recall as well that > getting a visa to the USA continues to be a challenge for citizens in > all developing countries. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > > On 09/06/2010 12:33 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > Dear friends > > > > I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community as important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil society organisations, including represenations of organisations from developing countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving the event to New York would create additional costs and logistic problems for them which would result in lower participation of civil society organisations. This would certainly undermine the multistakeholder nature of the WSIS implementaiton process. > > > > Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more important political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN acitvities in New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and would have difficulties to get the needed public attention. > > > > Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its annual Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency in Budapest. > > > > > > Regards > > > > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Sep 6 15:50:34 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 12:50:34 -0700 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <4C851A85.9030404@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I guess I was just being a bit misty eyed about how Canada used to be before the current bunch took over... M -----Original Message----- From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 9:45 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Cc: 'Jacqueline Morris' Subject: Re: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 For Canadians like you and me, quite easy, Michael -- but Canadian visa restrictions for non-Canadians from developing countries are also quite hard... However, Vancouver is sensational! :) --c.a. On 09/06/2010 01:27 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Vancouver... (we have a lot of spare post-Olympics hotel capacity at > the moment ;-) M > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Jacqueline Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] > *Sent:* Monday, September 06, 2010 9:20 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google > *Subject:* Re: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 > > Don't they usually hold these events in UN cities? That means > Geneva, Nairobi, New York, Vienna, Bangkok, Santiago, Addis Ababa > and Beirut. Is there another one in a visa free country that is easy > to get to? > Jacqueline > > 2010/9/6 Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google > > > Unfortunately, these Visa challenges extend to the Schengen area for > developing countries as well. Switzerland joined the Schengen > Agreement in 2008. > > Costs of travel from Latin America and the Caribbean to Europe > remain > prohibitive and the cheapest routes are generally through the US > anyway. > > It might also be just a good time as any to advocate for a move of > WSIS to a relatively Visa free area or country. > > Panama, therefore, sounds pretty good as a Venue if these things are > even still being considered. > > On 9/6/10, Carlos A. Afonso > wrote: > > Adding to Wolf's quite relevant worries, let us recall as > well that > > getting a visa to the USA continues to be a challenge for > citizens in > > all developing countries. > > > > frt rgds > > > > --c.a. > > > > > > On 09/06/2010 12:33 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > >> Dear friends > >> > >> I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to > New York of the > >> WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS > implementation > >> forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will > weaken in > >> particular the involvement of civil society and the academic > community as > >> important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number > of civil > >> society organisations, including represenations of > organisations from > >> developing countries, are based in Geneva or not far from > Geneva. Moving > >> the event to New York would create additional costs and > logistic problems > >> for them which would result in lower participation of civil > society > >> organisations. This would certainly undermine the > multistakeholder nature > >> of the WSIS implementaiton process. > >> > >> Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be > that the > >> important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of > more important > >> political and security issues which dominate the day to day > UN acitvities > >> in New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another > conference" and would > >> have difficulties to get the needed public attention. > >> > >> Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union > has its annual > >> Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian > Presidency in > >> Budapest. > >> > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Wolfgang Kleinwächter > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > > > > -- > 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 > > -- 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Sep 6 15:53:19 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 05:53:19 +1000 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Looks good to me ­ replace ICC with IGC and we have it! Ian Peter From: William Drake Reply-To: , William Drake Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 21:23:19 +0200 To: Sivasubramanian M Cc: Governance List Subject: Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 Hi Just read the ICC's statement, which states in part, "The WSIS action lines Forum events in Geneva have drawn upon the fact that many key organizations are located in Geneva, and the participation of many stakeholders, business included, has been facilitated by the fact that other WSIS related activities take place around the same dates. This has enabled participation by many because it took into account the limited time, financial and human resources of many across stakeholder groups. Organizing the WSIS action lines Forum 2011 in New York risks decreasing participation because it would require extensive travel for those participating in the other WSIS related activities in May in Geneva. Feedback from ICC BASIS members and other stakeholders indicates that obtaining visas for the US is extremely difficult for many particularly from developing countries. This would in turn decrease the range of participants. ICC BASIS supports having the WSIS action lines Forum 2011 hosted in Geneva, or by the next lead facilitator, UNESCO in Paris." http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/ICC_BASIS_stmt_re_WSIS_F orum_2011_venue_FINAL_6Sept10.pdf Is this a reasonable position from an IGC perspectiveŠ? Best, Bill On Sep 6, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > 2010/9/6 William Drake >> Hi, >> >> We can toss around ideas about where an ideal venue that causes the least >> hassle for the most people might be, but the WSIS Forum will be held in >> either New York or Geneva. Lee is probably right about mainstreaming; the >> question is, on what/whose terms? Personally, I have never noticed that all >> that many CS people actually attend the WSIS Forums in the first place; >> they're certainly not much in evidence on the panels, which are largely >> selected by ITU on an "expert" rather than "stakeholder" basis. But to the >> extent that IG/ICT-oriented CS people do wish to attend, one would think >> there's probably greater synergies and cost effectiveness for them in keeping >> it in Geneva during the same two week bloc as the IGF consultation (assuming >> those remain in Geneva) and the CSTD. For CS people working in the other >> areas that are in the UN NY's bailiwick, e.g. disarmament et al, NY is >> obviously more convenient, but would they be all that interested enough in >> the typical WSIS Forum topics to attend? Unclear. And I suppose one could >> widen the optic further and wonder whether this might fit in with larger >> discussions about the management of ICT-related activities connected to DESAŠ >> >> Should there be an IGC response to ITU's "Open Consultation" (means we can >> use their website, not enter the building), or would consensus being >> difficult to achieve? > > If CS does not assert its stakes in WSIS process, the WSIS panels could be > engineered to lead to conclusions that the ITU desires, which would be a step > back from the progress that the IGF has made. > > There needs to be an IGC response. Also, IGC could reach out to fair and > neutral international organizations to object to and alter the process. > > Sivasubramanian M > > >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> On Sep 6, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > Speaking as an academic for whom I admit New York City is convenient and >>> would lowering my personal costs and logistics hassles, we can agree that UN >>> venue decisions have impacts that may vary depending upon where one is >>> coming from. Geneva is a fine (expensive) city, New York has its virtues >>> too. >>> > >>> > A move to New York for wsis 2011 would to me signal a mainstreaming of IG >>> issues wthin UN system; as would establishment of a permanent secretariat in >>> yet a 3rd (developing?) location. >>> > >>> > But Wolfgang, the argument that it would be more difficult to get >>> media/public attention - in New York City - doesn't make much sense to me. >>> In principle it should be easier. There's certainly plenty of media outlets >>> hanging around already looking for things to talk and write about. >>> > >>> > Anyway, as I suggested before, while civil society has some success at >>> substantive issues around IG, venue/location decisions I am afraid remain >>> power politics/business as usual choices. >>> > >>> > Lee >>> > ________________________________________ >>> > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >>> [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >>> > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 11:33 AM >>> > To: wsis-info at itu.int >>> > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> > Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 >>> > >>> > Dear friends >>> > >>> > I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of the >>> WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation >>> forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in >>> particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community as >>> important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil society >>> organisations, including represenations of organisations from developing >>> countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving the event to >>> New York would create additional costs and logistic problems for them which >>> would result in lower participation of civil society organisations. This >>> would certainly undermine the multistakeholder nature of the WSIS >>> implementaiton process. >>> > >>> > Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the >>> important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more important >>> political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN acitvities in >>> New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and would have >>> difficulties to get the needed public attention. >>> > >>> > Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its annual >>> Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency in >>> Budapest. >>> > >>> > >>> > Regards >>> > >>> > Wolfgang Kleinwächter >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Mon Sep 6 16:03:19 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 16:03:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <1283801654.1920.154.camel@anriette-laptop> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4C850D1A.3080608@cafonso.ca> <1283801654.1920.154.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: I can see the headlines now ... a great opportunity for more meaningful Caribbean participation in the global IG process? Doomed to failure once again because of ....? There are about 29 SIDS and LDCs in the Caribbean region who would welcome the opportunity to finally get a chance to participate in an event where a direct return flight might cost its Civil Society about US$400-500. 300,000 people died in an earthquake in our region this year. We feel the brunt of the OECD's and G20's "decisions" People, have a heart. 2010/9/6 Anriette Esterhuysen > I want to echo the concern expressed around having the WSIS Forum 2011 > in New York. Schengen visas are not easy to get, but they are still > easier to get than US visas, and Schengen countries do not refuse visas > nearly as frequently as the US does. Swiss Schengen visas are generally > faster and easier to get than other Schengen visas. > > As far as cost of travel is concerned, while NY is cheaper for people > from the Americas it is more expensive for almost everyone else. > > Aside from cost, and visas, there are also two other factors to > consider: > > - synchronising and co-location with other meetings > - proximity of relevant institutions > > While it is good to think of such events having rotating venues, we need > to remember that it is important to have them in places where relevant > institutions are based. The UN institutions most actively involved in > WSIS implementation are UNESCO and the ITU. Also active in their fields > have been WHO and FAO (in Rome). Add to that UNCTAD's CSTD and the IGF > secretariat, and WIPO and it makes sense to have these meetings in > Geneva, or, if UNESCO is hosting, in Paris. > > At least Paris is close enough for those of us who have to travel from > far away to then be able to also attend the CSTD and IGF events in > Geneva. > > If all these events are moved to New York it will just escalate costs as > Geneva and Paris-based UN staff would have to travel en mass. > > Perhaps having the WSIS forum in NY might place follow-up it higher on > the intergovernmental agenda... but I am not convinced. The UN ICT Task > Force held meetings in New York in the early 2000s, and, most of the > really engaged UN personnel (outside of the Task Force secretariat and > UNDP which is no longer really engaged) were those that traveled from > Geneva. As far as civil society was concerned.. there were loads of > North Americans, a sprinkling of Latin Americans, but very few Africans > and Asians. > > It also depends what else is happening.. whether ECOSOC is sitting or > not. > > The WSIS forum has had relatively good civil society participation as > UNESCO has sponsored travel... added to that UNCTAD's efforts to bring > civil society to the CSTD has meant that there is often a substantial > community in Geneva in May. APC and some of our partners are planning to > also start attending Human Rights Council meetings.. also in Geneva. > > Why this change now? What are the real behind-the-scenes goals? > Whatever they are... they are certainly not to maximise civil society > participation. I also doubt that it will increase developing country > government participation...we are just getting to a point where we are > able to engage with Geneva-based government representatives. It has > taken years for those government reps. who have not been part of the > WSIS-process to grasp the issues. Geneva-based developing country > representatives at UNCTAD, WTO and WIPO are increasingly focusing on ICT > issues. Let's build on this rather than move the event elsewhere. > > Anriette > > On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 12:47 -0300, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > Adding to Wolf's quite relevant worries, let us recall as well that > > getting a visa to the USA continues to be a challenge for citizens in > > all developing countries. > > > > frt rgds > > > > --c.a. > > > > > > On 09/06/2010 12:33 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > > Dear friends > > > > > > I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of > the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation > forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in > particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community as > important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil society > organisations, including represenations of organisations from developing > countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving the event to > New York would create additional costs and logistic problems for them which > would result in lower participation of civil society organisations. This > would certainly undermine the multistakeholder nature of the WSIS > implementaiton process. > > > > > > Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the > important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more important > political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN acitvities in > New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and would have > difficulties to get the needed public attention. > > > > > > Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its > annual Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency > in Budapest. > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > anriette esterhuysen - executive director > association for progressive communications > p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 > anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 > http://www.apc.org > > APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org > Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! > ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! > Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Sep 6 16:22:32 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 16:22:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The phrase in the ICC's statement is awkward in my view: "...the participation of many stakeholders, business included...." Stakeholder governance was born and raised in the corporate business context, it is only by attempted extension that it applies to CS if it does at all. Thus, the clarify that "stakeholders" means "business included" is redundant and awkward, unless one was intending to send a signal that business was on board and/or desirous of this particular venue of Geneva. I'm not expressing an opinion on where it should be, but I do find of interest to note who the text below wants to make sure we understand is being facilitated by a selection of Geneva, but it does seem to me that NYC does more business than Geneva does, but with a declining economy and decreased freedom of movement into and out of the USA, I'm open to contrary presentations of fact. Paul Lehto, J.D. On 9/6/10, Ian Peter wrote: > Looks good to me ­ replace ICC with IGC and we have it! > > Ian Peter > > From: William Drake > Reply-To: , William Drake > > Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 21:23:19 +0200 > Just read the ICC's statement, which states in part, "The WSIS action lines > Forum events in Geneva have drawn upon the fact that many key organizations > are located in Geneva, and the participation of many stakeholders, business > included, has been facilitated by the fact that other WSIS related > activities take place around the same dates. This has enabled participation > by many because it took into account the limited time, financial and human > resources of many across stakeholder groups. Organizing the WSIS action > lines Forum 2011 in New York risks decreasing participation because it would > require extensive travel for those participating in the other WSIS related > activities in May in Geneva. Feedback from ICC BASIS members and other > stakeholders indicates that obtaining visas for the US is extremely > difficult for many particularly from developing countries. This would in > turn decrease the range of participants. ICC BASIS supports having the WSIS > action lines Forum 2011 hosted in Geneva, or by the next lead facilitator, > UNESCO in Paris." > > http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/ICC_BASIS_stmt_re_WSIS_F > orum_2011_venue_FINAL_6Sept10.pdf > > Is this a reasonable position from an IGC perspectiveŠ? > > Best, > > Bill > > > > On Sep 6, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > >> >> 2010/9/6 William Drake >>> Hi, >>> >>> We can toss around ideas about where an ideal venue that causes the least >>> hassle for the most people might be, but the WSIS Forum will be held in >>> either New York or Geneva. Lee is probably right about mainstreaming; >>> the >>> question is, on what/whose terms? Personally, I have never noticed that >>> all >>> that many CS people actually attend the WSIS Forums in the first place; >>> they're certainly not much in evidence on the panels, which are largely >>> selected by ITU on an "expert" rather than "stakeholder" basis. But to >>> the >>> extent that IG/ICT-oriented CS people do wish to attend, one would think >>> there's probably greater synergies and cost effectiveness for them in >>> keeping >>> it in Geneva during the same two week bloc as the IGF consultation >>> (assuming >>> those remain in Geneva) and the CSTD. For CS people working in the other >>> areas that are in the UN NY's bailiwick, e.g. disarmament et al, NY is >>> obviously more convenient, but would they be all that interested enough >>> in >>> the typical WSIS Forum topics to attend? Unclear. And I suppose one >>> could >>> widen the optic further and wonder whether this might fit in with larger >>> discussions about the management of ICT-related activities connected to >>> DESAŠ >>> >>> Should there be an IGC response to ITU's "Open Consultation" (means we >>> can >>> use their website, not enter the building), or would consensus being >>> difficult to achieve? >> >> If CS does not assert its stakes in WSIS process, the WSIS panels could be >> engineered to lead to conclusions that the ITU desires, which would be a >> step >> back from the progress that the IGF has made. >> >> There needs to be an IGC response. Also, IGC could reach out to fair and >> neutral international organizations to object to and alter the process. >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> On Sep 6, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>> >>>> > Hi, >>>> > >>>> > Speaking as an academic for whom I admit New York City is convenient >>>> > and >>>> would lowering my personal costs and logistics hassles, we can agree >>>> that UN >>>> venue decisions have impacts that may vary depending upon where one is >>>> coming from. Geneva is a fine (expensive) city, New York has its virtues >>>> too. >>>> > >>>> > A move to New York for wsis 2011 would to me signal a mainstreaming of >>>> > IG >>>> issues wthin UN system; as would establishment of a permanent >>>> secretariat in >>>> yet a 3rd (developing?) location. >>>> > >>>> > But Wolfgang, the argument that it would be more difficult to get >>>> media/public attention - in New York City - doesn't make much sense to >>>> me. >>>> In principle it should be easier. There's certainly plenty of media >>>> outlets >>>> hanging around already looking for things to talk and write about. >>>> > >>>> > Anyway, as I suggested before, while civil society has some success at >>>> substantive issues around IG, venue/location decisions I am afraid >>>> remain >>>> power politics/business as usual choices. >>>> > >>>> > Lee >>>> > ________________________________________ >>>> > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >>>> [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >>>> > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 11:33 AM >>>> > To: wsis-info at itu.int >>>> > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> > Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 >>>> > >>>> > Dear friends >>>> > >>>> > I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of >>>> > the >>>> WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation >>>> forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in >>>> particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community >>>> as >>>> important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil >>>> society >>>> organisations, including represenations of organisations from developing >>>> countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving the event >>>> to >>>> New York would create additional costs and logistic problems for them >>>> which >>>> would result in lower participation of civil society organisations. This >>>> would certainly undermine the multistakeholder nature of the WSIS >>>> implementaiton process. >>>> > >>>> > Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the >>>> important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more important >>>> political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN >>>> acitvities in >>>> New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and would >>>> have >>>> difficulties to get the needed public attention. >>>> > >>>> > Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its >>>> > annual >>>> Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency in >>>> Budapest. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Regards >>>> > >>>> > Wolfgang Kleinwächter >>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > > -- 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 mueller at syr.edu Mon Sep 6 17:12:29 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 17:12:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> I view the groundswell for Geneva on this list to be a bit self-serving. Of course your Geneva-based orgs want it to stay there. I don't see why IGC should endorse that as a "pro civil society" position. The only argument of any merit is the visa difficulty issue - if, as Tracy calls into question, that difference still exists. I have my own self-interest, of course, but it seems to me that WSIS and IGF both are highly Euro-centric operations and it would be good to move it away from Europe for at least once. Whether its NY or Vancouver or Hong Kong or Panama matters less to me, although of course NYC is most convenient to me. Wolfgang's argument that there are more CS organizations in Geneva seems false to me; there are probably more CS organizations in the 300-mi radius of NYC (which includes Montreal and probably also Toronto) than anywhere else in the world. As a strict empirical test of the "reduced participation" claim, let me point out that the March 2004 WGIG-inspired meeting in New York was more widely attended than any subsequent WGIG consultation. I think you can count on a bang-up turnout, if nothing else, if you hold it in NY. From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 3:23 PM To: Sivasubramanian M Cc: Governance List Subject: Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 Hi Just read the ICC's statement, which states in part, "The WSIS action lines Forum events in Geneva have drawn upon the fact that many key organizations are located in Geneva, and the participation of many stakeholders, business included, has been facilitated by the fact that other WSIS related activities take place around the same dates. This has enabled participation by many because it took into account the limited time, financial and human resources of many across stakeholder groups. Organizing the WSIS action lines Forum 2011 in New York risks decreasing participation because it would require extensive travel for those participating in the other WSIS related activities in May in Geneva. Feedback from ICC BASIS members and other stakeholders indicates that obtaining visas for the US is extremely difficult for many particularly from developing countries. This would in turn decrease the range of participants. ICC BASIS supports having the WSIS action lines Forum 2011 hosted in Geneva, or by the next lead facilitator, UNESCO in Paris." http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/ICC_BASIS_stmt_re_WSIS_Forum_2011_venue_FINAL_6Sept10.pdf Is this a reasonable position from an IGC perspective...? Best, Bill On Sep 6, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: 2010/9/6 William Drake > Hi, We can toss around ideas about where an ideal venue that causes the least hassle for the most people might be, but the WSIS Forum will be held in either New York or Geneva. Lee is probably right about mainstreaming; the question is, on what/whose terms? Personally, I have never noticed that all that many CS people actually attend the WSIS Forums in the first place; they're certainly not much in evidence on the panels, which are largely selected by ITU on an "expert" rather than "stakeholder" basis. But to the extent that IG/ICT-oriented CS people do wish to attend, one would think there's probably greater synergies and cost effectiveness for them in keeping it in Geneva during the same two week bloc as the IGF consultation (assuming those remain in Geneva) and the CSTD. For CS people working in the other areas that are in the UN NY's bailiwick, e.g. disarmament et al, NY is obviously more convenient, but would they be all that interested enough in the typical WSIS Forum topics to attend? Unclear. And I suppose one could widen the optic further and wonder whether this might fit in with larger discussions about the management of ICT-related activities connected to DESA... Should there be an IGC response to ITU's "Open Consultation" (means we can use their website, not enter the building), or would consensus being difficult to achieve? If CS does not assert its stakes in WSIS process, the WSIS panels could be engineered to lead to conclusions that the ITU desires, which would be a step back from the progress that the IGF has made. There needs to be an IGC response. Also, IGC could reach out to fair and neutral international organizations to object to and alter the process. Sivasubramanian M Best, Bill On Sep 6, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > Speaking as an academic for whom I admit New York City is convenient and would lowering my personal costs and logistics hassles, we can agree that UN venue decisions have impacts that may vary depending upon where one is coming from. Geneva is a fine (expensive) city, New York has its virtues too. > > A move to New York for wsis 2011 would to me signal a mainstreaming of IG issues wthin UN system; as would establishment of a permanent secretariat in yet a 3rd (developing?) location. > > But Wolfgang, the argument that it would be more difficult to get media/public attention - in New York City - doesn't make much sense to me. In principle it should be easier. There's certainly plenty of media outlets hanging around already looking for things to talk and write about. > > Anyway, as I suggested before, while civil society has some success at substantive issues around IG, venue/location decisions I am afraid remain power politics/business as usual choices. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 11:33 AM > To: wsis-info at itu.int > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 > > Dear friends > > I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community as important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil society organisations, including represenations of organisations from developing countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving the event to New York would create additional costs and logistic problems for them which would result in lower participation of civil society organisations. This would certainly undermine the multistakeholder nature of the WSIS implementaiton process. > > Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more important political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN acitvities in New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and would have difficulties to get the needed public attention. > > Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its annual Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency in Budapest. > > > Regards > > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 6 17:38:05 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:08:05 -0430 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4C855F3D.3060702@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 vanda at uol.com.br Mon Sep 6 17:45:41 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 18:45:41 -0300 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <012601cb4e0c$df0e1fd0$9d2a5f70$@com.br> I totally agree with you, not to mention the Visa difficulty some countries have to enter US. All the best Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 Tel: + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob: + 55 11 8181 1464 -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 12:33 PM To: wsis-info at itu.int Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 Dear friends I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community as important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil society organisations, including represenations of organisations from developing countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving the event to New York would create additional costs and logistic problems for them which would result in lower participation of civil society organisations. This would certainly undermine the multistakeholder nature of the WSIS implementaiton process. Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more important political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN acitvities in New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and would have difficulties to get the needed public attention. Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its annual Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency in Budapest. Regards Wolfgang Kleinwächter ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 6 17:58:34 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 03:28:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear Milton, On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I view the groundswell for Geneva on this list to be a bit self-serving. > Of course your Geneva-based orgs want it to stay there. I don’t see why IGC > should endorse that as a “pro civil society” position. > > The only argument of any merit is the visa difficulty issue – if, as Tracy > calls into question, that difference still exists. > Europe is emotionally healthier than the United States. US, in its paranoia, has become a destination for strip searches and it is becoming increasingly unpleasant for the rest of the world to travel to the US. Until this changes, US is a destination unfit for international events, especially the ones that require International Public participation. Sivasubramanian M. > > > I have my own self-interest, of course, but it seems to me that WSIS and > IGF both are highly Euro-centric operations and it would be good to move it > away from Europe for at least once. Whether its NY or Vancouver or Hong Kong > or Panama matters less to me, although of course NYC is most convenient to > me. > > > > Wolfgang’s argument that there are more CS organizations in Geneva seems > false to me; there are probably more CS organizations in the 300-mi radius > of NYC (which includes Montreal and probably also Toronto) than anywhere > else in the world. > > > > As a strict empirical test of the “reduced participation” claim, let me > point out that the March 2004 WGIG-inspired meeting in New York was more > widely attended than any subsequent WGIG consultation. I think you can count > on a bang-up turnout, if nothing else, if you hold it in NY. > > > > *From:* William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > *Sent:* Monday, September 06, 2010 3:23 PM > *To:* Sivasubramanian M > *Cc:* Governance List > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 > > > > Hi > > > > Just read the ICC's statement, which states in part, "The WSIS action lines > Forum events in Geneva have drawn upon the fact that many key organizations > are located in Geneva, and the participation of many stakeholders, business > included, has been facilitated by the fact that other WSIS related > activities take place around the same dates. This has enabled participation > by many because it took into account the limited time, financial and human > resources of many across stakeholder groups. Organizing the WSIS action > lines Forum 2011 in New York risks decreasing participation because it would > require extensive travel for those participating in the other WSIS related > activities in May in Geneva. Feedback from ICC BASIS members and other > stakeholders indicates that obtaining visas for the US is extremely > difficult for many particularly from developing countries. This would in > turn decrease the range of participants. ICC BASIS supports having the WSIS > action lines Forum 2011 hosted in Geneva, or by the next lead facilitator, > UNESCO in Paris." > > > > > http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/ICC_BASIS_stmt_re_WSIS_Forum_2011_venue_FINAL_6Sept10.pdf > > > > Is this a reasonable position from an IGC perspective…? > > > > Best, > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > On Sep 6, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > > > > > 2010/9/6 William Drake > > Hi, > > We can toss around ideas about where an ideal venue that causes the least > hassle for the most people might be, but the WSIS Forum will be held in > either New York or Geneva. Lee is probably right about mainstreaming; the > question is, on what/whose terms? Personally, I have never noticed that all > that many CS people actually attend the WSIS Forums in the first place; > they're certainly not much in evidence on the panels, which are largely > selected by ITU on an "expert" rather than "stakeholder" basis. But to the > extent that IG/ICT-oriented CS people do wish to attend, one would think > there's probably greater synergies and cost effectiveness for them in > keeping it in Geneva during the same two week bloc as the IGF consultation > (assuming those remain in Geneva) and the CSTD. For CS people working in > the other areas that are in the UN NY's bailiwick, e.g. disarmament et al, > NY is obviously more convenient, but would they be all that interested > enough in the typical WSIS Forum topics to attend? Unclear. And I suppose > one could widen the optic further and wonder whether this might fit in with > larger discussions about the management of ICT-related activities connected > to DESA… > > Should there be an IGC response to ITU's "Open Consultation" (means we can > use their website, not enter the building), or would consensus being > difficult to achieve? > > > > If CS does not assert its stakes in WSIS process, the WSIS panels could be > engineered to lead to conclusions that the ITU desires, which would be a > step back from the progress that the IGF has made. > > > > There needs to be an IGC response. Also, IGC could reach out to fair and > neutral international organizations to object to and alter the process. > > > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > > > > Best, > > Bill > > > On Sep 6, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Speaking as an academic for whom I admit New York City is convenient and > would lowering my personal costs and logistics hassles, we can agree that UN > venue decisions have impacts that may vary depending upon where one is > coming from. Geneva is a fine (expensive) city, New York has its virtues > too. > > > > A move to New York for wsis 2011 would to me signal a mainstreaming of IG > issues wthin UN system; as would establishment of a permanent secretariat in > yet a 3rd (developing?) location. > > > > But Wolfgang, the argument that it would be more difficult to get > media/public attention - in New York City - doesn't make much sense to me. > In principle it should be easier. There's certainly plenty of media outlets > hanging around already looking for things to talk and write about. > > > > Anyway, as I suggested before, while civil society has some success at > substantive issues around IG, venue/location decisions I am afraid remain > power politics/business as usual choices. > > > > Lee > > ________________________________________ > > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [ > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 11:33 AM > > To: wsis-info at itu.int > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 > > > > Dear friends > > > > I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of > the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation > forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in > particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community as > important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil society > organisations, including represenations of organisations from developing > countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving the event to > New York would create additional costs and logistic problems for them which > would result in lower participation of civil society organisations. This > would certainly undermine the multistakeholder nature of the WSIS > implementaiton process. > > > > Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the > important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more important > political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN acitvities in > New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and would have > difficulties to get the needed public attention. > > > > Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its > annual Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency > in Budapest. > > > > > > Regards > > > > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > *********************************************************** > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Sep 6 18:03:40 2010 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 00:03:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5EBC601B-5BFD-4971-9A87-AEAF909C8C4E@marzouki.info> Le 6 sept. 10 à 21:53, Ian Peter a écrit : > Looks good to me – replace ICC with IGC and we have it! Ian, you should be more careful. Just imagine someone quoting your 'cri du coeur' (hartfelt appeal) without mentioning its object;)) Actually, this object - ICC's statement - is itself a 'cri du coeur' from the business sector. Not an appeal to consider its poor situation (business cannot face the cost of travelling to NYC? Not!), but rather an appeal to stop this clear taking over. I find it pretty odd - or significant - to see the discussion turned into a comparative analysis of flight costs and visa burden, instead of an analysis of the real point, made by Lee: "A move to New York for wsis 2011 would to me signal a mainstreaming of IG issues wthin UN system". +1, then. Especially given the coincidence in the dates of the 65th session of the UN General Assembly (which should decide on the continuation of the IGF) and of the result announcement for WSIS Forum 2011 venue. Not sure I would back 100% the remaining of Lee's statement, though ("as would establishment of a permanent secretariat in yet a 3rd (developing?) location."). In any case, this has a political meaning. Now an interesting discussion would start from asking whether this meaning would be a good sign or not, in what sense and for whom. Best, Meryem > > Ian Peter > > > From: William Drake > Reply-To: , William Drake > > Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 21:23:19 +0200 > To: Sivasubramanian M > Cc: Governance List > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 > > Hi > > Just read the ICC's statement, which states in part, "The WSIS > action lines Forum events in Geneva have drawn upon the fact that > many key organizations are located in Geneva, and the participation > of many stakeholders, business included, has been facilitated by > the fact that other WSIS related activities take place around the > same dates. This has enabled participation by many because it took > into account the limited time, financial and human resources of > many across stakeholder groups. Organizing the WSIS action lines > Forum 2011 in New York risks decreasing participation because it > would require extensive travel for those participating in the other > WSIS related activities in May in Geneva. Feedback from ICC BASIS > members and other stakeholders indicates that obtaining visas for > the US is extremely difficult for many particularly from developing > countries. This would in turn decrease the range of participants. > ICC BASIS supports having the WSIS action lines Forum 2011 hosted > in Geneva, or by the next lead facilitator, UNESCO in Paris." > > http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/ > ICC_BASIS_stmt_re_WSIS_Forum_2011_venue_FINAL_6Sept10.pdf > > Is this a reasonable position from an IGC perspective…? > > Best, > > Bill > > > > On Sep 6, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > >> >> 2010/9/6 William Drake >>> Hi, >>> >>> We can toss around ideas about where an ideal venue that causes >>> the least hassle for the most people might be, but the WSIS Forum >>> will be held in either New York or Geneva. Lee is probably >>> right about mainstreaming; the question is, on what/whose terms? >>> Personally, I have never noticed that all that many CS people >>> actually attend the WSIS Forums in the first place; they're >>> certainly not much in evidence on the panels, which are largely >>> selected by ITU on an "expert" rather than "stakeholder" basis. >>> But to the extent that IG/ICT-oriented CS people do wish to >>> attend, one would think there's probably greater synergies and >>> cost effectiveness for them in keeping it in Geneva during the >>> same two week bloc as the IGF consultation (assuming those remain >>> in Geneva) and the CSTD. For CS people working in the other >>> areas that are in the UN NY's bailiwick, e.g. disarmament et al, >>> NY is obviously more convenient, but would they be all that >>> interested enough in the typical WSIS Forum topics to attend? >>> Unclear. And I suppose one could widen the optic further and >>> wonder whether this might fit in with larger discussions about >>> the management of ICT-related activities connected to DESA… >>> >>> Should there be an IGC response to ITU's "Open >>> Consultation" (means we can use their website, not enter the >>> building), or would consensus being difficult to achieve? >> >> If CS does not assert its stakes in WSIS process, the WSIS panels >> could be engineered to lead to conclusions that the ITU desires, >> which would be a step back from the progress that the IGF has made. >> >> There needs to be an IGC response. Also, IGC could reach out to >> fair and neutral international organizations to object to and >> alter the process. >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> On Sep 6, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>> >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > Speaking as an academic for whom I admit New York City is >>> convenient and would lowering my personal costs and logistics >>> hassles, we can agree that UN venue decisions have impacts that >>> may vary depending upon where one is coming from. Geneva is a >>> fine (expensive) city, New York has its virtues too. >>> > >>> > A move to New York for wsis 2011 would to me signal a >>> mainstreaming of IG issues wthin UN system; as would >>> establishment of a permanent secretariat in yet a 3rd >>> (developing?) location. >>> > >>> > But Wolfgang, the argument that it would be more difficult to >>> get media/public attention - in New York City - doesn't make >>> much sense to me. In principle it should be easier. There's >>> certainly plenty of media outlets hanging around already looking >>> for things to talk and write about. >>> > >>> > Anyway, as I suggested before, while civil society has some >>> success at substantive issues around IG, venue/location decisions >>> I am afraid remain power politics/business as usual choices. >>> > >>> > Lee >>> > ________________________________________ >>> > From: "Kleinwächter, >>> Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >>> > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 11:33 AM >>> > To: wsis-info at itu.int >>> > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> > Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 >>> > >>> > Dear friends >>> > >>> > I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New >>> York of the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS >>> implementation forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to >>> NewYork will weaken in particular the involvement of civil >>> society and the academic community as important stakeholders in >>> the WSIS process. A large number of civil society organisations, >>> including represenations of organisations from developing >>> countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving the >>> event to New York would create additional costs and logistic >>> problems for them which would result in lower participation of >>> civil society organisations. This would certainly undermine the >>> multistakeholder nature of the WSIS implementaiton process. >>> > >>> > Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be >>> that the important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow >>> of more important political and security issues which dominate >>> the day to day UN acitvities in New York. The WSIS Forum would be >>> just "another conference" and would have difficulties to get the >>> needed public attention. >>> > >>> > Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has >>> its annual Future of the Internet Week meetings under the >>> Hungarian Presidency in Budapest. >>> > >>> > >>> > Regards >>> > >>> > Wolfgang Kleinwächter >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html> >>> www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake >> 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > 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 Sep 6 18:28:04 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:28:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1283812084.1920.234.camel@anriette-laptop> Dear all Meryem is correct.. this is not just about cost and visas... the strategic opportunities and challenges are interesting. The fact that the ITU wants to convene an event in NY while the GA is meeting on the future of the IGF is probably not a coincidence. Also keep in mind that the WSIS Forum is primarily about the development goals of the WSIS, not about IG. I.o.w. is convening it in NY about "mainstreaming of IG issues wthin UN system" or simply about the organisers of the WSIS Forum influencing the decisions made at this paticular sitting of the General Assembly? Milton, the event you talk about was the "UN ICT Task Force Global Forum on Internet Governance". Bill Drake, Karen Banks and I were involved in the organisation, working with the UN ICT Task Force secretariat. APC was chair of the policy working group of the Task Force. It was a good event :) But participation from developing countries was not that good if you excluded the fairly diverse Task Force membership.. and WGIG people. There was a large ISOC, NRO, ICANN crowd. We worked very hard to get people there, and there was some funding available to do so. I think there might have been some Ford Foundation funded event that coincided... I do remember a large number of US NGOs being present, e.g. EPIC. Diplo also brought people.. it felt in many ways like a mini-IGF. We (through the UN ICT Task Force) also had some funding to commission discussion documents from people like George Sadowsky, Norbert Klein, Carlos Afonso, Adam Peake and others. We also lost people who were not granted visas... UNDP still had a fairly substantial ICT for Development programme at the time, and being NY-based that added to the energy of the event. Anriette > As a strict empirical test of the “reduced participation” claim, let > me point out that the March 2004 WGIG-inspired meeting in New York was > more widely attended than any subsequent WGIG consultation. I think > you can count on a bang-up turnout, if nothing else, if you hold it in > NY. > > > > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 3:23 PM > To: Sivasubramanian M > Cc: Governance List > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 > > > > > Hi > > > > > Just read the ICC's statement, which states in part, "The WSIS action > lines Forum events in Geneva have drawn upon the fact that many key > organizations are located in Geneva, and the participation of many > stakeholders, business included, has been facilitated by the fact that > other WSIS related activities take place around the same dates. This > has enabled participation by many because it took into account the > limited time, financial and human resources of many across stakeholder > groups. Organizing the WSIS action lines Forum 2011 in New York risks > decreasing participation because it would require extensive travel for > those participating in the other WSIS related activities in May in > Geneva. Feedback from ICC BASIS members and other stakeholders > indicates that obtaining visas for the US is extremely difficult for > many particularly from developing countries. This would in turn > decrease the range of participants. ICC BASIS supports having the WSIS > action lines Forum 2011 hosted in Geneva, or by the next lead > facilitator, UNESCO in Paris." > > > > > > http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/ICC_BASIS_stmt_re_WSIS_Forum_2011_venue_FINAL_6Sept10.pdf > > > > > > Is this a reasonable position from an IGC perspective…? > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 6, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > > > > > > 2010/9/6 William Drake > > Hi, > > We can toss around ideas about where an ideal venue that causes the > least hassle for the most people might be, but the WSIS Forum will be > held in either New York or Geneva. Lee is probably right about > mainstreaming; the question is, on what/whose terms? Personally, I > have never noticed that all that many CS people actually attend the > WSIS Forums in the first place; they're certainly not much in evidence > on the panels, which are largely selected by ITU on an "expert" rather > than "stakeholder" basis. But to the extent that IG/ICT-oriented CS > people do wish to attend, one would think there's probably greater > synergies and cost effectiveness for them in keeping it in Geneva > during the same two week bloc as the IGF consultation (assuming those > remain in Geneva) and the CSTD. For CS people working in the other > areas that are in the UN NY's bailiwick, e.g. disarmament et al, NY is > obviously more convenient, but would they be all that interested > enough in the typical WSIS Forum topics to attend? Unclear. And I > suppose one could widen the optic further and wonder whether this > might fit in with larger discussions about the management of > ICT-related activities connected to DESA… > > Should there be an IGC response to ITU's "Open Consultation" (means we > can use their website, not enter the building), or would consensus > being difficult to achieve? > > > > > If CS does not assert its stakes in WSIS process, the WSIS panels > could be engineered to lead to conclusions that the ITU desires, which > would be a step back from the progress that the IGF has made. > > > > > > There needs to be an IGC response. Also, IGC could reach out to fair > and neutral international organizations to object to and alter the > process. > > > > > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > Bill > > > On Sep 6, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Speaking as an academic for whom I admit New York City is > convenient and would lowering my personal costs and logistics > hassles, we can agree that UN venue decisions have impacts > that may vary depending upon where one is coming from. Geneva > is a fine (expensive) city, New York has its virtues too. > > > > A move to New York for wsis 2011 would to me signal a > mainstreaming of IG issues wthin UN system; as would > establishment of a permanent secretariat in yet a 3rd > (developing?) location. > > > > But Wolfgang, the argument that it would be more difficult > to get media/public attention - in New York City - doesn't > make much sense to me. In principle it should be easier. > There's certainly plenty of media outlets hanging around > already looking for things to talk and write about. > > > > Anyway, as I suggested before, while civil society has some > success at substantive issues around IG, venue/location > decisions I am afraid remain power politics/business as usual > choices. > > > > Lee > > ________________________________________ > > From: "Kleinwächter, > Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 11:33 AM > > To: wsis-info at itu.int > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 > > > > Dear friends > > > > I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to > New York of the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and > bring WSIS implementation forward. In contrary I am afraid > that a move to NewYork will weaken in particular the > involvement of civil society and the academic community as > important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of > civil society organisations, including represenations of > organisations from developing countries, are based in Geneva > or not far from Geneva. Moving the event to New York would > create additional costs and logistic problems for them which > would result in lower participation of civil society > organisations. This would certainly undermine the > multistakeholder nature of the WSIS implementaiton process. > > > > Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be > that the important WSIS issues would be discussed in the > shadow of more important political and security issues which > dominate the day to day UN acitvities in New York. The WSIS > Forum would be just "another conference" and would have > difficulties to get the needed public attention. > > > > Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union > has its annual Future of the Internet Week meetings under the > Hungarian Presidency in Budapest. > > > > > > Regards > > > > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > *********************************************************** > > > > > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Sep 6 18:35:31 2010 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 00:35:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <1283812084.1920.234.camel@anriette-laptop> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1283812084.1920.234.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: Le 7 sept. 10 à 00:28, Anriette Esterhuysen a écrit : > Dear all > > Meryem is correct.. this is not just about cost and visas... the > strategic opportunities and challenges are interesting. The fact that > the ITU wants to convene an event in NY while the GA is meeting on the > future of the IGF is probably not a coincidence. Since it's about WSIS Forum 2011 venue, the coincidence this year is with the announcement of the decided venue (NYC or not). But the announcement is as important as the event itself, in such matters, as we all know. 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Sep 6 18:36:18 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 01:36:18 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <4C855F3D.3060702@gmail.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C855F3D.3060702@gmail.com> Message-ID: I'd be happy to sign on to smt like the ICC statement On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > a stakeholder and geographic breakdown of the attendance list for the '2004 > WGIG-inspired meeting in New York was more widely attended' that Milton > mentions, as I wonder if this attendance included a wide participation of > Africa, Caribbean, Pacific Asian and South American stakeholders, or if it > was logically centered on US and US-based participants. Is this data > available? seems not. But from the WSIS Forum 2010 the date are here: http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2010/forum/geneva/docs/wsisforum2010-list_of_participants_trimmed.pdf -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Sep 6 18:40:03 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 01:40:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C855F3D.3060702@gmail.com> Message-ID: PS we have 5 days to give input: http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2011/forum/ -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Sep 6 18:40:58 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 18:40:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <5EBC601B-5BFD-4971-9A87-AEAF909C8C4E@marzouki.info> References: ,<5EBC601B-5BFD-4971-9A87-AEAF909C8C4E@marzouki.info> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFBD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Meryem, 1st thanks for focusing also on strategic aspects. My point is folks really in the game already thought about the relative convenience for different factions of locating WSIS in this or that city - and decided for -strategic - reasons to hold it at UN HQ. I suspect. Where yeah important things like security are discussed. Which increasingly means cybersecurity. IGC going on record as opposing New York...well if there was a strategic reason like we are against the Secretary General ('s staff) paying more attention to IG, then fine. But if we are just being asked to take sides in a cyber-power struggle between UN HQ and other UN organizations....like everyone's favorite the ITU...well no offense to my ITU pals, but I'll take that seat closer to the (UN) SecGen thank you very much. Lee PS: As an aside, the GAID Prepcom at UN HQ last Wednesday-Thursday seemed reasonably well attended by folks coming from all over. . ________________________________________ From: Meryem Marzouki [meryem at marzouki.info] Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 6:03 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 Le 6 sept. 10 à 21:53, Ian Peter a écrit : Looks good to me – replace ICC with IGC and we have it! Ian, you should be more careful. Just imagine someone quoting your 'cri du coeur' (hartfelt appeal) without mentioning its object;)) Actually, this object - ICC's statement - is itself a 'cri du coeur' from the business sector. Not an appeal to consider its poor situation (business cannot face the cost of travelling to NYC? Not!), but rather an appeal to stop this clear taking over. I find it pretty odd - or significant - to see the discussion turned into a comparative analysis of flight costs and visa burden, instead of an analysis of the real point, made by Lee: "A move to New York for wsis 2011 would to me signal a mainstreaming of IG issues wthin UN system". +1, then. Especially given the coincidence in the dates of the 65th session of the UN General Assembly (which should decide on the continuation of the IGF) and of the result announcement for WSIS Forum 2011 venue. Not sure I would back 100% the remaining of Lee's statement, though ("as would establishment of a permanent secretariat in yet a 3rd (developing?) location."). In any case, this has a political meaning. Now an interesting discussion would start from asking whether this meaning would be a good sign or not, in what sense and for whom. Best, Meryem Ian Peter ________________________________ From: William Drake Reply-To: , William Drake Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 21:23:19 +0200 To: Sivasubramanian M Cc: Governance List Subject: Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 Hi Just read the ICC's statement, which states in part, "The WSIS action lines Forum events in Geneva have drawn upon the fact that many key organizations are located in Geneva, and the participation of many stakeholders, business included, has been facilitated by the fact that other WSIS related activities take place around the same dates. This has enabled participation by many because it took into account the limited time, financial and human resources of many across stakeholder groups. Organizing the WSIS action lines Forum 2011 in New York risks decreasing participation because it would require extensive travel for those participating in the other WSIS related activities in May in Geneva. Feedback from ICC BASIS members and other stakeholders indicates that obtaining visas for the US is extremely difficult for many particularly from developing countries. This would in turn decrease the range of participants. ICC BASIS supports having the WSIS action lines Forum 2011 hosted in Geneva, or by the next lead facilitator, UNESCO in Paris." http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/ICC_BASIS_stmt_re_WSIS_Forum_2011_venue_FINAL_6Sept10.pdf Is this a reasonable position from an IGC perspective…? Best, Bill On Sep 6, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: 2010/9/6 William Drake Hi, We can toss around ideas about where an ideal venue that causes the least hassle for the most people might be, but the WSIS Forum will be held in either New York or Geneva. Lee is probably right about mainstreaming; the question is, on what/whose terms? Personally, I have never noticed that all that many CS people actually attend the WSIS Forums in the first place; they're certainly not much in evidence on the panels, which are largely selected by ITU on an "expert" rather than "stakeholder" basis. But to the extent that IG/ICT-oriented CS people do wish to attend, one would think there's probably greater synergies and cost effectiveness for them in keeping it in Geneva during the same two week bloc as the IGF consultation (assuming those remain in Geneva) and the CSTD. For CS people working in the other areas that are in the UN NY's bailiwick, e.g. disarmament et al, NY is obviously more convenient, but would they be all that interested enough in the typical WSIS Forum topics to attend? Unclear. And I suppose one could widen the optic further and wonder whether this might fit in with larger discussions about the management of ICT-related activities connected to DESA… Should there be an IGC response to ITU's "Open Consultation" (means we can use their website, not enter the building), or would consensus being difficult to achieve? If CS does not assert its stakes in WSIS process, the WSIS panels could be engineered to lead to conclusions that the ITU desires, which would be a step back from the progress that the IGF has made. There needs to be an IGC response. Also, IGC could reach out to fair and neutral international organizations to object to and alter the process. Sivasubramanian M Best, Bill On Sep 6, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > Speaking as an academic for whom I admit New York City is convenient and would lowering my personal costs and logistics hassles, we can agree that UN venue decisions have impacts that may vary depending upon where one is coming from. Geneva is a fine (expensive) city, New York has its virtues too. > > A move to New York for wsis 2011 would to me signal a mainstreaming of IG issues wthin UN system; as would establishment of a permanent secretariat in yet a 3rd (developing?) location. > > But Wolfgang, the argument that it would be more difficult to get media/public attention - in New York City - doesn't make much sense to me. In principle it should be easier. There's certainly plenty of media outlets hanging around already looking for things to talk and write about. > > Anyway, as I suggested before, while civil society has some success at substantive issues around IG, venue/location decisions I am afraid remain power politics/business as usual choices. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 11:33 AM > To: wsis-info at itu.int > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 > > Dear friends > > I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community as important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil society organisations, including represenations of organisations from developing countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving the event to New York would create additional costs and logistic problems for them which would result in lower participation of civil society organisations. This would certainly undermine the multistakeholder nature of the WSIS implementaiton process. > > Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more important political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN acitvities in New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and would have difficulties to get the needed public attention. > > Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its annual Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency in Budapest. > > > Regards > > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 19:47:37 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 16:47:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <4C855F3D.3060702@gmail.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C855F3D.3060702@gmail.com> Message-ID: <712721.93479.qm@web55207.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Hi I enjoy coming to Europe so I like the idea of Geneva. Having said that, New York may also be consideration for the centrality it offers. As an added perspective, I have been serving on another Commission at the UN for the past 10 years and despite having our conferences in the midst of blizzard season in February and March we have had attendance from all regions ranging from 5000-10000 people , One special year we even had 15000 if I'm not mistaken. In fact if anything the African pacific countries attendance is always strong example . So notwithstanding visa situation UN NY was and is still a popular venue. Shaila Rao Mistry From: Ginger Paque To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Sent: Mon, September 6, 2010 2:38:05 PM Subject: Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 If our priority is inclusion and a wide range of participation (for me it is), then I think the main argument is indeed ease and cost of travel and visas. However, I think we should ask for WHOM it is going to be easier. NY is easier for me, but I am not a priority for inclusion. I would like to see a stakeholder and geographic breakdown of the attendance list for the '2004 WGIG-inspired meeting in New York was more widely attended' that Milton mentions, as I wonder if this attendance included a wide participation of Africa, Caribbean, Pacific Asian and South American stakeholders, or if it was logically centered on US and US-based participants. Is this data available? Is it possible to do a poll or other sounding to find out which (NY or Geneva) venue would result in a wider (theoretical) range of inclusion, particularly for less represented regions? Best, gp Ginger (Virginia) Paque IGCBPOnline 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. On 9/6/2010 4:42 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >I view the groundswell for Geneva on this list to be a bit >self-serving. Of course your Geneva-based orgs want it to stay >there. I don’t see why IGC should endorse that as a “pro civil >society” position. The only argument of any merit is the >visa difficulty issue – if, as Tracy calls into >question, that difference still exists. > > >I have my own self-interest, of course, but it seems to me that WSIS >and IGF both are highly Euro-centric operations and it would be good >to move it away from Europe for at least once. Whether its NY >or Vancouver or Hong Kong or Panama matters less to me, although of >course NYC is most convenient to me. > > >Wolfgang’s argument that there are more CS organizations >in Geneva seems false to me; there are probably more CS >organizations in the 300-mi radius of NYC (which includes Montreal >and probably also Toronto) than anywhere else in the >world. > > >As a strict empirical test of the “reduced participation” >claim, let me point out that the March 2004 WGIG-inspired meeting in >New York was more widely attended than any subsequent WGIG >consultation. I think you can count on a bang-up turnout, if nothing >else, if you hold it in NY. > > >From:William Drake >[mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > >Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 3:23 PM >To: Sivasubramanian M >Cc: Governance List >Subject: Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 > >Hi > >Just read the ICC's statement, which states in >part, "The WSIS action lines Forum events in Geneva have drawn >upon the fact that many key organizations are located in >Geneva, and the participation of many stakeholders, business >included, has been facilitated by the fact that >other WSIS related activities take place around the same >dates. This has enabled participation by many because it took into >account the limited time, financial and human resources of many >across stakeholder groups. Organizing the WSIS >action lines Forum 2011 in New York risks >decreasing participation because it would require extensive travel >for those participating in the other WSIS related activities >in May in Geneva. Feedback from ICC BASIS members and other >stakeholders indicates that obtaining visas for the >US is extremely difficult for many particularly from >developing countries. This would in turn decrease the range of >participants. ICC BASIS supports having the WSIS action lines >Forum 2011 hosted in Geneva, or by the next lead facilitator, >UNESCO in Paris." > >http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/ICC_BASIS_stmt_re_WSIS_Forum_2011_venue_FINAL_6Sept10.pdf > > >Is this a reasonable position from an IGC perspective…? > >Best, > >Bill > > > >On Sep 6, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > > > >2010/9/6 William Drake >Hi, > >We can toss around ideas about where an ideal venue that >causes the least hassle for the most people might be, but the >WSIS Forum will be held in either New York >or Geneva. Lee is probably right about mainstreaming; the >question is, on what/whose terms? Personally, I have never >noticed that all that many CS people actually attend the WSIS >Forums in the first place; they're certainly not much in >evidence on the panels, which are largely >selected by ITU on an "expert" rather than "stakeholder" >basis. But to the extent that IG/ICT-oriented CS people do >wish to attend, one would think there's probably greater >synergies and cost effectiveness for them in keeping it in >Geneva during the same two week bloc as the >IGF consultation (assuming those remain in Geneva) and the >CSTD. For CS people working in the other areas that are in >the UN NY's bailiwick, e.g. disarmament >etal, NY is obviously more convenient, but would they be all >that interested enough in the typical WSIS Forum topics to >attend? Unclear. And I suppose one could widen the optic >further and wonder whether this might fit in >with larger discussions about the management of ICT-related >activities connected to DESA… > >Should there be an IGC response to ITU's "Open Consultation" >(means we can use their website, not enter the building), or >would consensus being difficult to achieve? > >If CS does not assert its stakes in WSIS process, the WSIS >panels could be engineered to lead to conclusions that the >ITU desires, which would be a step back from the progress >that the IGF has made. > >There needs to be an IGC response. Also, IGC could reach out >to fair and neutral international organizations to object >to and alter the process. > >Sivasubramanian M > > > >>Best, >> >>Bill >> >>On Sep 6, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Speaking as an academic for whom I admit New York City >>>is convenient and would lowering my personal costs and >>>logistics hassles, we can agree that UN >>>venue decisions have impacts that may vary depending >>>upon where one is coming from. Geneva is a fine >>>(expensive) city, New York has its virtues too. >>> >>> A move to New York for wsis 2011 would to me signal a >>>mainstreaming of IG issues wthin UN system; as would >>>establishment of a permanent secretariat in >>>yet a 3rd (developing?) location. >>> >>> But Wolfgang, the argument that it would be more >>>difficult to get media/public attention - in New York >>>City - doesn't make much sense to >>>me. In principle it should be easier. There's certainly >>>plenty of media outlets hanging around already looking >>>for things to talk and write about. >>> >>> Anyway, as I suggested before, while civil society has >>>some success at substantive issues around IG, >>>venue/location decisions I am afraid remain power >>>politics/business as usual choices. >>> >>> Lee >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >>[wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >>> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 11:33 AM >>> To: wsis-info at itu.int >>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 >>> >>> Dear friends >>> >>> I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to >>>to New York of the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS >>>implementation forward. In contrary I am afraid that a >>>move to NewYork will weaken in particular the >>>involvement of civil society and the academic community >>>as important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large >>>number of civil society organisations, including >>>represenations of organisations from developing >>>countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. >>>Moving the event to New York would create additional >>>costs and logistic problems for them which would result >>>in lower participation of civil society organisations. >>>This would certainly undermine the multistakeholder >>>nature of the WSISimplementaiton process. >>> >>> Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York >>>would be that the important WSIS issues would be >>>discussed in the shadow of more important >>>political and security issues which dominate the day to >>>day UN acitvities in New York. The WSIS Forum would be >>>just "another conference" and would >>>have difficulties to get the needed public attention. >>> >>> Finally I want to flag that in same week the European >>>Union has its annual Future of the Internet Week >>>meetings under the Hungarian Presidency in >>>Budapest. >>> >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the >list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 >>*********************************************************** >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pkisokau at gmail.com Mon Sep 6 20:52:14 2010 From: pkisokau at gmail.com (Parkop Kisokau) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 08:52:14 +0800 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <712721.93479.qm@web55207.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C855F3D.3060702@gmail.com> <712721.93479.qm@web55207.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi, While it may be strategic for WSIS to be held in NYC due to its proximity to the UN, with the idea that the closest location will hit the target the hardest. We can achieve both, reaching the WSIS objective and wider participation by choosing countries with less Visa difficulties unlike like the IGF in Schengen countries and now proposal for WSIS in NYC would not encourage greater participation from developing countries. How would we promote multi-stakeholderism if this is the approach we are taking now? Would we still achieve our objective if WSIS was held in Hong Kong, Bangkok, or other less visa difficult countries with wider participation? Parkop Kisokau USTB - BJ CN. On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:47 AM, shaila mistry wrote: > Hi > I enjoy coming to Europe so I like the idea of Geneva. Having said that, > New York may also be consideration for the centrality it offers. As an > added perspective, I have been serving on another Commission at the UN for > the past 10 years and despite having our conferences in the midst of > blizzard season in February and March we have had attendance from all > regions ranging from 5000-10000 people , One special year we even had 15000 > if I'm not mistaken. In fact if anything the African pacific countries > attendance is always strong example . So notwithstanding visa situation UN > NY was and is still a popular venue. > Shaila Rao Mistry > > ** > *From:* Ginger Paque > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > *Sent:* Mon, September 6, 2010 2:38:05 PM > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 > > If our priority is inclusion and a wide range of participation (for me it > is), then I think the main argument is indeed ease and cost of travel and > visas. However, I think we should ask for WHOM it is going to be easier. NY > is easier for me, but I am not a priority for inclusion. I would like to see > a stakeholder and geographic breakdown of the attendance list for the '2004 > WGIG-inspired meeting in New York was more widely attended' that Milton > mentions, as I wonder if this attendance included a wide participation of > Africa, Caribbean, Pacific Asian and South American stakeholders, or if it > was logically centered on US and US-based participants. Is this data > available? > > Is it possible to do a poll or other sounding to find out which (NY or > Geneva) venue would result in a wider (theoretical) range of inclusion, > particularly for less represented regions? > > Best, gp > > > > 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. > > On 9/6/2010 4:42 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I view the groundswell for Geneva on this list to be a bit self-serving. > Of course your Geneva-based orgs want it to stay there. I don’t see why IGC > should endorse that as a “pro civil society” position. The only argument of > any merit is the visa difficulty issue – if, as Tracy calls into question, > that difference still exists. > > > > I have my own self-interest, of course, but it seems to me that WSIS and > IGF both are highly Euro-centric operations and it would be good to move it > away from Europe for at least once. Whether its NY or Vancouver or Hong Kong > or Panama matters less to me, although of course NYC is most convenient to > me. > > > > Wolfgang’s argument that there are more CS organizations in Geneva seems > false to me; there are probably more CS organizations in the 300-mi radius > of NYC (which includes Montreal and probably also Toronto) than anywhere > else in the world. > > > > As a strict empirical test of the “reduced participation” claim, let me > point out that the March 2004 WGIG-inspired meeting in New York was more > widely attended than any subsequent WGIG consultation. I think you can count > on a bang-up turnout, if nothing else, if you hold it in NY. > > > > *From:* William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > > *Sent:* Monday, September 06, 2010 3:23 PM > *To:* Sivasubramanian M > *Cc:* Governance List > *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 > > > > Hi > > > > Just read the ICC's statement, which states in part, "The WSIS action lines > Forum events in Geneva have drawn upon the fact that many key organizations > are located in Geneva, and the participation of many stakeholders, business > included, has been facilitated by the fact that other WSIS related > activities take place around the same dates. This has enabled participation > by many because it took into account the limited time, financial and human > resources of many across stakeholder groups. Organizing the WSIS action > lines Forum 2011 in New York risks decreasing participation because it would > require extensive travel for those participating in the other WSIS related > activities in May in Geneva. Feedback from ICC BASIS members and other > stakeholders indicates that obtaining visas for the US is extremely > difficult for many particularly from developing countries. This would in > turn decrease the range of participants. ICC BASIS supports having the WSIS > action lines Forum 2011 hosted in Geneva, or by the next lead facilitator, > UNESCO in Paris." > > > > > http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/ICC_BASIS_stmt_re_WSIS_Forum_2011_venue_FINAL_6Sept10.pdf > > > > Is this a reasonable position from an IGC perspective…? > > > > Best, > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > On Sep 6, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > > > > > 2010/9/6 William Drake > > Hi, > > We can toss around ideas about where an ideal venue that causes the least > hassle for the most people might be, but the WSIS Forum will be held in > either New York or Geneva. Lee is probably right about mainstreaming; the > question is, on what/whose terms? Personally, I have never noticed that all > that many CS people actually attend the WSIS Forums in the first place; > they're certainly not much in evidence on the panels, which are largely > selected by ITU on an "expert" rather than "stakeholder" basis. But to the > extent that IG/ICT-oriented CS people do wish to attend, one would think > there's probably greater synergies and cost effectiveness for them in > keeping it in Geneva during the same two week bloc as the IGF consultation > (assuming those remain in Geneva) and the CSTD. For CS people working in > the other areas that are in the UN NY's bailiwick, e.g. disarmament et al, > NY is obviously more convenient, but would they be all that interested > enough in the typical WSIS Forum topics to attend? Unclear. And I suppose > one could widen the optic further and wonder whether this might fit in with > larger discussions about the management of ICT-related activities connected > to DESA… > > Should there be an IGC response to ITU's "Open Consultation" (means we can > use their website, not enter the building), or would consensus being > difficult to achieve? > > > > If CS does not assert its stakes in WSIS process, the WSIS panels could be > engineered to lead to conclusions that the ITU desires, which would be a > step back from the progress that the IGF has made. > > > > There needs to be an IGC response. Also, IGC could reach out to fair and > neutral international organizations to object to and alter the process. > > > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > > > > Best, > > Bill > > > On Sep 6, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Speaking as an academic for whom I admit New York City is convenient and > would lowering my personal costs and logistics hassles, we can agree that UN > venue decisions have impacts that may vary depending upon where one is > coming from. Geneva is a fine (expensive) city, New York has its virtues > too. > > > > A move to New York for wsis 2011 would to me signal a mainstreaming of IG > issues wthin UN system; as would establishment of a permanent secretariat in > yet a 3rd (developing?) location. > > > > But Wolfgang, the argument that it would be more difficult to get > media/public attention - in New York City - doesn't make much sense to me. > In principle it should be easier. There's certainly plenty of media outlets > hanging around already looking for things to talk and write about. > > > > Anyway, as I suggested before, while civil society has some success at > substantive issues around IG, venue/location decisions I am afraid remain > power politics/business as usual choices. > > > > Lee > > ________________________________________ > > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [ > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 11:33 AM > > To: wsis-info at itu.int > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 > > > > Dear friends > > > > I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of > the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation > forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in > particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community as > important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil society > organisations, including represenations of organisations from developing > countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving the event to > New York would create additional costs and logistic problems for them which > would result in lower participation of civil society organisations. This > would certainly undermine the multistakeholder nature of the WSIS > implementaiton process. > > > > Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the > important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more important > political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN acitvities in > New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and would have > difficulties to get the needed public attention. > > > > Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its > annual Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency > in Budapest. > > > > > > Regards > > > > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 ca at cafonso.ca Mon Sep 6 21:19:31 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:19:31 -0300 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4C859323.3030902@cafonso.ca> Milton, some of your arguments make little sense, sorry -- we are talking about CS worldwide, not American CS concentration in a 300 mi radius around NY. In this case, let us move it to São Paulo -- the metropolitan area alone has thousands of registered NGOs... I think that having to choose only between NY and Geneva, I would stick to Geneva. Moving to NY would still keep it in the "Elizabeth Arden" circuit which does not change things much, except that Wolf's arguments regarding this move continue to make sense to me. And there is the non-trivial visa question -- it is an obvious mistake to think Swiss visas are as difficult to obtain as a US one. frt rgds --c.a. On 09/06/2010 06:12 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I view the groundswell for Geneva on this list to be a bit self-serving. > Of course your Geneva-based orgs want it to stay there. I don’t see why > IGC should endorse that as a “pro civil society” position. The only > argument of any merit is the visa difficulty issue – if, as Tracy calls > into question, that difference still exists. > > I have my own self-interest, of course, but it seems to me that WSIS and > IGF both are highly Euro-centric operations and it would be good to move > it away from Europe for at least once. Whether its NY or Vancouver or > Hong Kong or Panama matters less to me, although of course NYC is most > convenient to me. > > Wolfgang’s argument that there are more CS organizations in Geneva seems > false to me; there are probably more CS organizations in the 300-mi > radius of NYC (which includes Montreal and probably also Toronto) than > anywhere else in the world. > > As a strict empirical test of the “reduced participation” claim, let me > point out that the March 2004 WGIG-inspired meeting in New York was more > widely attended than any subsequent WGIG consultation. I think you can > count on a bang-up turnout, if nothing else, if you hold it in NY. > > *From:* William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > *Sent:* Monday, September 06, 2010 3:23 PM > *To:* Sivasubramanian M > *Cc:* Governance List > *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 > > Hi > > Just read the ICC's statement, which states in part, "The WSIS action > lines Forum events in Geneva have drawn upon the fact that many key > organizations are located in Geneva, and the participation of many > stakeholders, business included, has been facilitated by the fact that > other WSIS related activities take place around the same dates. This has > enabled participation by many because it took into account the limited > time, financial and human resources of many across stakeholder groups. > Organizing the WSIS action lines Forum 2011 in New York risks decreasing > participation because it would require extensive travel for those > participating in the other WSIS related activities in May in Geneva. > Feedback from ICC BASIS members and other stakeholders indicates that > obtaining visas for the US is extremely difficult for many particularly > from developing countries. This would in turn decrease the range of > participants. ICC BASIS supports having the WSIS action lines Forum 2011 > hosted in Geneva, or by the next lead facilitator, UNESCO in Paris." > > http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/ICC_BASIS_stmt_re_WSIS_Forum_2011_venue_FINAL_6Sept10.pdf > > Is this a reasonable position from an IGC perspective…? > > Best, > > Bill > > On Sep 6, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > > > 2010/9/6 William Drake > > > Hi, > > We can toss around ideas about where an ideal venue that causes the > least hassle for the most people might be, but the WSIS Forum will be > held in either New York or Geneva. Lee is probably right about > mainstreaming; the question is, on what/whose terms? Personally, I have > never noticed that all that many CS people actually attend the WSIS > Forums in the first place; they're certainly not much in evidence on the > panels, which are largely selected by ITU on an "expert" rather than > "stakeholder" basis. But to the extent that IG/ICT-oriented CS people do > wish to attend, one would think there's probably greater synergies and > cost effectiveness for them in keeping it in Geneva during the same two > week bloc as the IGF consultation (assuming those remain in Geneva) and > the CSTD. For CS people working in the other areas that are in the UN > NY's bailiwick, e.g. disarmament et al, NY is obviously more convenient, > but would they be all that interested enough in the typical WSIS Forum > topics to attend? Unclear. And I suppose one could widen the optic > further and wonder whether this might fit in with larger discussions > about the management of ICT-related activities connected to DESA… > > Should there be an IGC response to ITU's "Open Consultation" (means we > can use their website, not enter the building), or would consensus being > difficult to achieve? > > If CS does not assert its stakes in WSIS process, the WSIS panels could > be engineered to lead to conclusions that the ITU desires, which would > be a step back from the progress that the IGF has made. > > There needs to be an IGC response. Also, IGC could reach out to fair and > neutral international organizations to object to and alter the process. > > Sivasubramanian M > > > Best, > > Bill > > > On Sep 6, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Speaking as an academic for whom I admit New York City is > convenient and would lowering my personal costs and logistics > hassles, we can agree that UN venue decisions have impacts that may > vary depending upon where one is coming from. Geneva is a fine > (expensive) city, New York has its virtues too. > > > > A move to New York for wsis 2011 would to me signal a > mainstreaming of IG issues wthin UN system; as would establishment > of a permanent secretariat in yet a 3rd (developing?) location. > > > > But Wolfgang, the argument that it would be more difficult to get > media/public attention - in New York City - doesn't make much sense > to me. In principle it should be easier. There's certainly plenty of > media outlets hanging around already looking for things to talk and > write about. > > > > Anyway, as I suggested before, while civil society has some > success at substantive issues around IG, venue/location decisions I > am afraid remain power politics/business as usual choices. > > > > Lee > > ________________________________________ > > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de > ] > > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 11:33 AM > > To: wsis-info at itu.int > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 > > > > Dear friends > > > > I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New > York of the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS > implementation forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to > NewYork will weaken in particular the involvement of civil society > and the academic community as important stakeholders in the WSIS > process. A large number of civil society organisations, including > represenations of organisations from developing countries, are based > in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving the event to New York would > create additional costs and logistic problems for them which would > result in lower participation of civil society organisations. This > would certainly undermine the multistakeholder nature of the WSIS > implementaiton process. > > > > Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that > the important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more > important political and security issues which dominate the day to > day UN acitvities in New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another > conference" and would have difficulties to get the needed public > attention. > > > > Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has > its annual Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian > Presidency in Budapest. > > > > > > Regards > > > > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > > *********************************************************** > -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Sep 6 21:26:32 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:26:32 -0300 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4C8594C8.80005@cafonso.ca> To make things worse, some idiotic church in Florida has just decided to burn copies of the Quran on September 11... forcing an American general from the Afghan field to go on national TV to ask "please do not do it, it will put our soldiers in peril here...". I mean, where is that country going to??? --c.a. On 09/06/2010 06:58 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Dear Milton, > > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > > I view the groundswell for Geneva on this list to be a bit > self-serving. Of course your Geneva-based orgs want it to stay > there. I don’t see why IGC should endorse that as a “pro civil > society” position. > > > The only argument of any merit is the visa difficulty issue – if, as > Tracy calls into question, that difference still exists. > > > > Europe is emotionally healthier than the United States. US, in its > paranoia, has become a destination for strip searches and it is becoming > increasingly unpleasant for the rest of the world to travel to the US. > Until this changes, US is a destination unfit for international events, > especially the ones that require International Public participation. > > Sivasubramanian M. > > > I have my own self-interest, of course, but it seems to me that WSIS > and IGF both are highly Euro-centric operations and it would be good > to move it away from Europe for at least once. Whether its NY or > Vancouver or Hong Kong or Panama matters less to me, although of > course NYC is most convenient to me. > > Wolfgang’s argument that there are more CS organizations in Geneva > seems false to me; there are probably more CS organizations in the > 300-mi radius of NYC (which includes Montreal and probably also > Toronto) than anywhere else in the world. > > As a strict empirical test of the “reduced participation” claim, let > me point out that the March 2004 WGIG-inspired meeting in New York > was more widely attended than any subsequent WGIG consultation. I > think you can count on a bang-up turnout, if nothing else, if you > hold it in NY. > > *From:* William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > ] > *Sent:* Monday, September 06, 2010 3:23 PM > *To:* Sivasubramanian M > *Cc:* Governance List > > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 > > Hi > > Just read the ICC's statement, which states in part, "The WSIS > action lines Forum events in Geneva have drawn upon the fact that > many key organizations are located in Geneva, and the participation > of many stakeholders, business included, has been facilitated by the > fact that other WSIS related activities take place around the same > dates. This has enabled participation by many because it took into > account the limited time, financial and human resources of many > across stakeholder groups. Organizing the WSIS action lines Forum > 2011 in New York risks decreasing participation because it would > require extensive travel for those participating in the other WSIS > related activities in May in Geneva. Feedback from ICC BASIS members > and other stakeholders indicates that obtaining visas for the US is > extremely difficult for many particularly from developing countries. > This would in turn decrease the range of participants. ICC BASIS > supports having the WSIS action lines Forum 2011 hosted in Geneva, > or by the next lead facilitator, UNESCO in Paris." > > http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/ICC_BASIS_stmt_re_WSIS_Forum_2011_venue_FINAL_6Sept10.pdf > > Is this a reasonable position from an IGC perspective…? > > Best, > > Bill > > On Sep 6, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > > > 2010/9/6 William Drake > > > Hi, > > We can toss around ideas about where an ideal venue that causes the > least hassle for the most people might be, but the WSIS Forum will > be held in either New York or Geneva. Lee is probably right about > mainstreaming; the question is, on what/whose terms? Personally, I > have never noticed that all that many CS people actually attend the > WSIS Forums in the first place; they're certainly not much in > evidence on the panels, which are largely selected by ITU on an > "expert" rather than "stakeholder" basis. But to the extent that > IG/ICT-oriented CS people do wish to attend, one would think there's > probably greater synergies and cost effectiveness for them in > keeping it in Geneva during the same two week bloc as the IGF > consultation (assuming those remain in Geneva) and the CSTD. For CS > people working in the other areas that are in the UN NY's bailiwick, > e.g. disarmament et al, NY is obviously more convenient, but would > they be all that interested enough in the typical WSIS Forum topics > to attend? Unclear. And I suppose one could widen the optic > further and wonder whether this might fit in with larger discussions > about the management of ICT-related activities connected to DESA… > > Should there be an IGC response to ITU's "Open Consultation" (means > we can use their website, not enter the building), or would > consensus being difficult to achieve? > > If CS does not assert its stakes in WSIS process, the WSIS panels > could be engineered to lead to conclusions that the ITU desires, > which would be a step back from the progress that the IGF has made. > > There needs to be an IGC response. Also, IGC could reach out to fair > and neutral international organizations to object to and alter the > process. > > Sivasubramanian M > > > Best, > > Bill > > > On Sep 6, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Speaking as an academic for whom I admit New York City is > convenient and would lowering my personal costs and logistics > hassles, we can agree that UN venue decisions have impacts that > may vary depending upon where one is coming from. Geneva is a > fine (expensive) city, New York has its virtues too. > > > > A move to New York for wsis 2011 would to me signal a > mainstreaming of IG issues wthin UN system; as would > establishment of a permanent secretariat in yet a 3rd > (developing?) location. > > > > But Wolfgang, the argument that it would be more difficult to > get media/public attention - in New York City - doesn't make > much sense to me. In principle it should be easier. There's > certainly plenty of media outlets hanging around already looking > for things to talk and write about. > > > > Anyway, as I suggested before, while civil society has some > success at substantive issues around IG, venue/location > decisions I am afraid remain power politics/business as usual > choices. > > > > Lee > > ________________________________________ > > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de > ] > > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 11:33 AM > > To: wsis-info at itu.int > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 > > > > Dear friends > > > > I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to > New York of the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring > WSIS implementation forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move > to NewYork will weaken in particular the involvement of civil > society and the academic community as important stakeholders in > the WSIS process. A large number of civil society organisations, > including represenations of organisations from developing > countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving > the event to New York would create additional costs and logistic > problems for them which would result in lower participation of > civil society organisations. This would certainly undermine the > multistakeholder nature of the WSIS implementaiton process. > > > > Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be > that the important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow > of more important political and security issues which dominate > the day to day UN acitvities in New York. The WSIS Forum would > be just "another conference" and would have difficulties to get > the needed public attention. > > > > Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union > has its annual Future of the Internet Week meetings under the > Hungarian Presidency in Budapest. > > > > > > Regards > > > > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > > *********************************************************** > > -- 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 nhklein at gmx.net Mon Sep 6 21:29:01 2010 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 08:29:01 +0700 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <4C859323.3030902@cafonso.ca> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C859323.3030902@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4C85955D.8010504@gmx.net> On 09/07/2010 08:19 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Milton, some of your arguments make little sense, sorry -- we are > talking about CS worldwide, not American CS concentration in a 300 mi > radius around NY. In this case, let us move it to São Paulo -- the > metropolitan area alone has thousands of registered NGOs... > > I think that having to choose only between NY and Geneva, I would > stick to Geneva. Moving to NY would still keep it in the "Elizabeth > Arden" circuit which does not change things much, except that Wolf's > arguments regarding this move continue to make sense to me. > > And there is the non-trivial visa question -- it is an obvious mistake > to think Swiss visas are as difficult to obtain as a US one. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. Living in Cambodia (with a German passport) I have, over the years, helped many Cambodians to process their Schengen visa applications for conference participation or studies, all without any rejection; I have tried also to help others with US visa applications - unfortunately the process was more difficult, and it did not work out in several cases. Of course this is based on several dozen cases only - maybe overall statistics may lead to different results. Norbert -- 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 Law, Rules, and Common Sense Sunday, 5.9.2010 http://tinyurl.com/366f5f4 (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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Mon Sep 6 21:43:48 2010 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <4C8594C8.80005@cafonso.ca> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C8594C8.80005@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <654350.8385.qm@web120512.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Carlos, I suggest you read this article by Nicholas Kristof to get more of an idea. To question where America is going is simplisitc - it's a very complicated country. Much like any other with good and bad. Anyway, the article is at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/opinion/05kristof.html. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Carlos A. Afonso To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Sivasubramanian M Cc: Milton L Mueller ; William Drake Sent: Tue, 7 September, 2010 11:26:32 AM Subject: Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 To make things worse, some idiotic church in Florida has just decided to burn copies of the Quran on September 11... forcing an American general from the Afghan field to go on national TV to ask "please do not do it, it will put our soldiers in peril here...". I mean, where is that country going to??? --c.a. On 09/06/2010 06:58 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Dear Milton, > > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > > I view the groundswell for Geneva on this list to be a bit > self-serving. Of course your Geneva-based orgs want it to stay > there. I don’t see why IGC should endorse that as a “pro civil > society” position. > > > The only argument of any merit is the visa difficulty issue – if, as > Tracy calls into question, that difference still exists. > > > > Europe is emotionally healthier than the United States. US, in its > paranoia, has become a destination for strip searches and it is becoming > increasingly unpleasant for the rest of the world to travel to the US. > Until this changes, US is a destination unfit for international events, > especially the ones that require International Public participation. > > Sivasubramanian M. > > > I have my own self-interest, of course, but it seems to me that WSIS > and IGF both are highly Euro-centric operations and it would be good > to move it away from Europe for at least once. Whether its NY or > Vancouver or Hong Kong or Panama matters less to me, although of > course NYC is most convenient to me. > > Wolfgang’s argument that there are more CS organizations in Geneva > seems false to me; there are probably more CS organizations in the > 300-mi radius of NYC (which includes Montreal and probably also > Toronto) than anywhere else in the world. > > As a strict empirical test of the “reduced participation” claim, let > me point out that the March 2004 WGIG-inspired meeting in New York > was more widely attended than any subsequent WGIG consultation. I > think you can count on a bang-up turnout, if nothing else, if you > hold it in NY. > > *From:* William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > ] > *Sent:* Monday, September 06, 2010 3:23 PM > *To:* Sivasubramanian M > *Cc:* Governance List > > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 > > Hi > > Just read the ICC's statement, which states in part, "The WSIS > action lines Forum events in Geneva have drawn upon the fact that > many key organizations are located in Geneva, and the participation > of many stakeholders, business included, has been facilitated by the > fact that other WSIS related activities take place around the same > dates. This has enabled participation by many because it took into > account the limited time, financial and human resources of many > across stakeholder groups. Organizing the WSIS action lines Forum > 2011 in New York risks decreasing participation because it would > require extensive travel for those participating in the other WSIS > related activities in May in Geneva. Feedback from ICC BASIS members > and other stakeholders indicates that obtaining visas for the US is > extremely difficult for many particularly from developing countries. > This would in turn decrease the range of participants. ICC BASIS > supports having the WSIS action lines Forum 2011 hosted in Geneva, > or by the next lead facilitator, UNESCO in Paris." > > >http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/ICC_BASIS_stmt_re_WSIS_Forum_2011_venue_FINAL_6Sept10.pdf > > > Is this a reasonable position from an IGC perspective…? > > Best, > > Bill > > On Sep 6, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > > > 2010/9/6 William Drake > > > Hi, > > We can toss around ideas about where an ideal venue that causes the > least hassle for the most people might be, but the WSIS Forum will > be held in either New York or Geneva. Lee is probably right about > mainstreaming; the question is, on what/whose terms? Personally, I > have never noticed that all that many CS people actually attend the > WSIS Forums in the first place; they're certainly not much in > evidence on the panels, which are largely selected by ITU on an > "expert" rather than "stakeholder" basis. But to the extent that > IG/ICT-oriented CS people do wish to attend, one would think there's > probably greater synergies and cost effectiveness for them in > keeping it in Geneva during the same two week bloc as the IGF > consultation (assuming those remain in Geneva) and the CSTD. For CS > people working in the other areas that are in the UN NY's bailiwick, > e.g. disarmament et al, NY is obviously more convenient, but would > they be all that interested enough in the typical WSIS Forum topics > to attend? Unclear. And I suppose one could widen the optic > further and wonder whether this might fit in with larger discussions > about the management of ICT-related activities connected to DESA… > > Should there be an IGC response to ITU's "Open Consultation" (means > we can use their website, not enter the building), or would > consensus being difficult to achieve? > > If CS does not assert its stakes in WSIS process, the WSIS panels > could be engineered to lead to conclusions that the ITU desires, > which would be a step back from the progress that the IGF has made. > > There needs to be an IGC response. Also, IGC could reach out to fair > and neutral international organizations to object to and alter the > process. > > Sivasubramanian M > > > Best, > > Bill > > > On Sep 6, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Speaking as an academic for whom I admit New York City is > convenient and would lowering my personal costs and logistics > hassles, we can agree that UN venue decisions have impacts that > may vary depending upon where one is coming from. Geneva is a > fine (expensive) city, New York has its virtues too. > > > > A move to New York for wsis 2011 would to me signal a > mainstreaming of IG issues wthin UN system; as would > establishment of a permanent secretariat in yet a 3rd > (developing?) location. > > > > But Wolfgang, the argument that it would be more difficult to > get media/public attention - in New York City - doesn't make > much sense to me. In principle it should be easier. There's > certainly plenty of media outlets hanging around already looking > for things to talk and write about. > > > > Anyway, as I suggested before, while civil society has some > success at substantive issues around IG, venue/location > decisions I am afraid remain power politics/business as usual > choices. > > > > Lee > > ________________________________________ > > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de > ] > > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 11:33 AM > > To: wsis-info at itu.int > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 > > > > Dear friends > > > > I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to > New York of the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring > WSIS implementation forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move > to NewYork will weaken in particular the involvement of civil > society and the academic community as important stakeholders in > the WSIS process. A large number of civil society organisations, > including represenations of organisations from developing > countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving > the event to New York would create additional costs and logistic > problems for them which would result in lower participation of > civil society organisations. This would certainly undermine the > multistakeholder nature of the WSIS implementaiton process. > > > > Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be > that the important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow > of more important political and security issues which dominate > the day to day UN acitvities in New York. The WSIS Forum would > be just "another conference" and would have difficulties to get > the needed public attention. > > > > Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union > has its annual Future of the Internet Week meetings under the > Hungarian Presidency in Budapest. > > > > > > Regards > > > > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > > *********************************************************** > > -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Sep 6 21:50:38 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:50:38 -0300 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <654350.8385.qm@web120512.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C8594C8.80005@cafonso.ca> <654350.8385.qm@web120512.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C859A6E.70907@cafonso.ca> ... but it is an entirely new thread of discussion... :) --c.a. On 09/06/2010 10:43 PM, David Goldstein wrote: > Carlos, > > I suggest you read this article by Nicholas Kristof to get more of an idea. To > question where America is going is simplisitc - it's a very complicated country. > Much like any other with good and bad. Anyway, the article is at > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/opinion/05kristof.html. > > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Carlos A. Afonso > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Sivasubramanian M > Cc: Milton L Mueller; William Drake > > Sent: Tue, 7 September, 2010 11:26:32 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 > > To make things worse, some idiotic church in Florida has just decided to > burn copies of the Quran on September 11... forcing an American general > from the Afghan field to go on national TV to ask "please do not do it, > it will put our soldiers in peril here...". > > I mean, where is that country going to??? > > --c.a. > > On 09/06/2010 06:58 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >> Dear Milton, >> >> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Milton L Mueller> > wrote: >> >> I view the groundswell for Geneva on this list to be a bit >> self-serving. Of course your Geneva-based orgs want it to stay >> there. I don’t see why IGC should endorse that as a “pro civil >> society” position. >> >> >> The only argument of any merit is the visa difficulty issue – if, as >> Tracy calls into question, that difference still exists. >> >> >> >> Europe is emotionally healthier than the United States. US, in its >> paranoia, has become a destination for strip searches and it is becoming >> increasingly unpleasant for the rest of the world to travel to the US. >> Until this changes, US is a destination unfit for international events, >> especially the ones that require International Public participation. >> >> Sivasubramanian M. >> >> >> I have my own self-interest, of course, but it seems to me that WSIS >> and IGF both are highly Euro-centric operations and it would be good >> to move it away from Europe for at least once. Whether its NY or >> Vancouver or Hong Kong or Panama matters less to me, although of >> course NYC is most convenient to me. >> >> Wolfgang’s argument that there are more CS organizations in Geneva >> seems false to me; there are probably more CS organizations in the >> 300-mi radius of NYC (which includes Montreal and probably also >> Toronto) than anywhere else in the world. >> >> As a strict empirical test of the “reduced participation” claim, let >> me point out that the March 2004 WGIG-inspired meeting in New York >> was more widely attended than any subsequent WGIG consultation. I >> think you can count on a bang-up turnout, if nothing else, if you >> hold it in NY. >> >> *From:* William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >> ] >> *Sent:* Monday, September 06, 2010 3:23 PM >> *To:* Sivasubramanian M >> *Cc:* Governance List >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 >> >> Hi >> >> Just read the ICC's statement, which states in part, "The WSIS >> action lines Forum events in Geneva have drawn upon the fact that >> many key organizations are located in Geneva, and the participation >> of many stakeholders, business included, has been facilitated by the >> fact that other WSIS related activities take place around the same >> dates. This has enabled participation by many because it took into >> account the limited time, financial and human resources of many >> across stakeholder groups. Organizing the WSIS action lines Forum >> 2011 in New York risks decreasing participation because it would >> require extensive travel for those participating in the other WSIS >> related activities in May in Geneva. Feedback from ICC BASIS members >> and other stakeholders indicates that obtaining visas for the US is >> extremely difficult for many particularly from developing countries. >> This would in turn decrease the range of participants. ICC BASIS >> supports having the WSIS action lines Forum 2011 hosted in Geneva, >> or by the next lead facilitator, UNESCO in Paris." >> >> >> http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/ICC_BASIS_stmt_re_WSIS_Forum_2011_venue_FINAL_6Sept10.pdf >> >> >> Is this a reasonable position from an IGC perspective…? >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> On Sep 6, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >> >> >> >> 2010/9/6 William Drake> > >> >> Hi, >> >> We can toss around ideas about where an ideal venue that causes the >> least hassle for the most people might be, but the WSIS Forum will >> be held in either New York or Geneva. Lee is probably right about >> mainstreaming; the question is, on what/whose terms? Personally, I >> have never noticed that all that many CS people actually attend the >> WSIS Forums in the first place; they're certainly not much in >> evidence on the panels, which are largely selected by ITU on an >> "expert" rather than "stakeholder" basis. But to the extent that >> IG/ICT-oriented CS people do wish to attend, one would think there's >> probably greater synergies and cost effectiveness for them in >> keeping it in Geneva during the same two week bloc as the IGF >> consultation (assuming those remain in Geneva) and the CSTD. For CS >> people working in the other areas that are in the UN NY's bailiwick, >> e.g. disarmament et al, NY is obviously more convenient, but would >> they be all that interested enough in the typical WSIS Forum topics >> to attend? Unclear. And I suppose one could widen the optic >> further and wonder whether this might fit in with larger discussions >> about the management of ICT-related activities connected to DESA… >> >> Should there be an IGC response to ITU's "Open Consultation" (means >> we can use their website, not enter the building), or would >> consensus being difficult to achieve? >> >> If CS does not assert its stakes in WSIS process, the WSIS panels >> could be engineered to lead to conclusions that the ITU desires, >> which would be a step back from the progress that the IGF has made. >> >> There needs to be an IGC response. Also, IGC could reach out to fair >> and neutral international organizations to object to and alter the >> process. >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> On Sep 6, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > Speaking as an academic for whom I admit New York City is >> convenient and would lowering my personal costs and logistics >> hassles, we can agree that UN venue decisions have impacts that >> may vary depending upon where one is coming from. Geneva is a >> fine (expensive) city, New York has its virtues too. >> > >> > A move to New York for wsis 2011 would to me signal a >> mainstreaming of IG issues wthin UN system; as would >> establishment of a permanent secretariat in yet a 3rd >> (developing?) location. >> > >> > But Wolfgang, the argument that it would be more difficult to >> get media/public attention - in New York City - doesn't make >> much sense to me. In principle it should be easier. There's >> certainly plenty of media outlets hanging around already looking >> for things to talk and write about. >> > >> > Anyway, as I suggested before, while civil society has some >> success at substantive issues around IG, venue/location >> decisions I am afraid remain power politics/business as usual >> choices. >> > >> > Lee >> > ________________________________________ >> > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de >> ] >> > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 11:33 AM >> > To: wsis-info at itu.int >> > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 >> > >> > Dear friends >> > >> > I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to >> New York of the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring >> WSIS implementation forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move >> to NewYork will weaken in particular the involvement of civil >> society and the academic community as important stakeholders in >> the WSIS process. A large number of civil society organisations, >> including represenations of organisations from developing >> countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving >> the event to New York would create additional costs and logistic >> problems for them which would result in lower participation of >> civil society organisations. This would certainly undermine the >> multistakeholder nature of the WSIS implementaiton process. >> > >> > Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be >> that the important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow >> of more important political and security issues which dominate >> the day to day UN acitvities in New York. The WSIS Forum would >> be just "another conference" and would have difficulties to get >> the needed public attention. >> > >> > Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union >> has its annual Future of the Internet Week meetings under the >> Hungarian Presidency in Budapest. >> > >> > >> > Regards >> > >> > Wolfgang Kleinwächter >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 >> >> *********************************************************** >> >> > -- 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 aizu at anr.org Mon Sep 6 22:09:11 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 19:09:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <4C85955D.8010504@gmx.net> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C859323.3030902@cafonso.ca> <4C85955D.8010504@gmx.net> Message-ID: From the edge of the "Far East", both Geneva and NYC are not too convenient to fly. And from my limited experience there have been more visa challenges to get US visa than European, or Swiss visa from developing countries, in Asia or Africa, to begin with. For most Asian countries, SE Asia, South Asia, flight to Europe is one hop while to the US East coast requires two hops (or sometimes three including connections). I also note that proposal by ITU to move to NYC may be strategic. I understand there are no perfect or ideal solution. Making it to NYC is better for most people in the Americas, at least for the convenience. Keeping the status quo sounds bad in general (for me), but this time, I think it's safer to ask for Geneva. AND, in case NYC is selected, we should request additional measures for visa and other elements. best, izumi from Tokyo 2010/9/6 Norbert Klein : > On 09/07/2010 08:19 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Milton, some of your arguments make little sense, sorry -- we are >> talking about CS worldwide, not American CS concentration in a 300 mi >> radius around NY. In this case, let us move it to São Paulo -- the >> metropolitan area alone has thousands of registered NGOs... >> >> I think that having to choose only between NY and Geneva, I would >> stick to Geneva. Moving to NY would still keep it in the "Elizabeth >> Arden" circuit which does not change things much, except that Wolf's >> arguments regarding this move continue to make sense to me. >> >> And there is the non-trivial visa question -- it is an obvious mistake >> to think Swiss visas are as difficult to obtain as a US one. >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. > > Living in Cambodia (with a German passport) I have, over the years, > helped many Cambodians to process their Schengen visa applications for > conference participation or studies, all without any rejection; I have > tried also to help others with US visa applications - unfortunately the > process was more difficult, and it did not work out in several cases. > > Of course this is based on several dozen cases only - maybe overall > statistics may lead to different results. > > > Norbert > > -- > 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 Law, Rules, and Common Sense > Sunday, 5.9.2010 > > http://tinyurl.com/366f5f4 > (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 > > --                         >> 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 email at hakik.org Tue Sep 7 00:08:03 2010 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 10:08:03 +0600 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C859323.3030902@cafonso.ca> <4C85955D.8010504@gmx.net> Message-ID: <20100907040851.50C5A9076A@npogroups.org> In either case, not going into the detail of procedures, it is difficult to obtain visa from developing countries. However, if it is strategically necessary for the sustenance of IG issues, future of dialogues related to it and able to be closer to UN bodies, NYC if selected, as mentioned by Izumi, there could be request (even for Geneva) for easy solutions in visa and other matters. Best regards, Hakik At 08:09 AM 9/7/2010, Izumi AIZU wrote: > From the edge of the "Far East", both Geneva and NYC are not >too convenient to fly. And from my limited experience there have been >more visa challenges to get US visa than European, or Swiss visa >from developing countries, in Asia or Africa, to begin with. > >For most Asian countries, SE Asia, South Asia, flight to Europe >is one hop while to the US East coast requires two hops (or sometimes >three including connections). > >I also note that proposal by ITU to move to NYC may be strategic. > >I understand there are no perfect or ideal solution. Making it to NYC >is better for most people in the Americas, at least for the convenience. > >Keeping the status quo sounds bad in general (for me), but this time, >I think it's safer to ask for Geneva. AND, in case NYC is selected, we >should request additional measures for visa and other elements. > >best, > >izumi from Tokyo > > > >2010/9/6 Norbert Klein : > > On 09/07/2010 08:19 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Milton, some of your arguments make little sense, sorry -- we are > >> talking about CS worldwide, not American CS concentration in a 300 mi > >> radius around NY. In this case, let us move it to São Paulo -- the > >> metropolitan area alone has thousands of registered NGOs... > >> > >> I think that having to choose only between NY and Geneva, I would > >> stick to Geneva. Moving to NY would still keep it in the "Elizabeth > >> Arden" circuit which does not change things much, except that Wolf's > >> arguments regarding this move continue to make sense to me. > >> > >> And there is the non-trivial visa question -- it is an obvious mistake > >> to think Swiss visas are as difficult to obtain as a US one. > >> > >> frt rgds > >> > >> --c.a. > > > > Living in Cambodia (with a German passport) I have, over the years, > > helped many Cambodians to process their Schengen visa applications for > > conference participation or studies, all without any rejection; I have > > tried also to help others with US visa applications - unfortunately the > > process was more difficult, and it did not work out in several cases. > > > > Of course this is based on several dozen cases only - maybe overall > > statistics may lead to different results. > > > > > > Norbert > > > > -- > > 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 Law, Rules, and Common Sense > > Sunday, 5.9.2010 > > > > http://tinyurl.com/366f5f4 > > (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 > > > > > > > >-- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Sep 7 00:27:46 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 00:27:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C859323.3030902@cafonso.ca> <4C85955D.8010504@gmx.net>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFBF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> To summarize: A WSIS 2011 venue has been decided by ITU; and accepted by UN HQ. It's good for some - such as people coming from Caribbean - and yeah ok us New Yorkers too. And a long way from Asia. Instead of discussing what we might hope to accomplish in 2011, or in Vilnius, we plan to protest - what exactly? New York City? Jay-Z? CS is showing its strategic acumen again for sure....ok not so much. Lee ________________________________________ From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [aizu at anr.org] Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 10:09 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Klein Subject: Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 From the edge of the "Far East", both Geneva and NYC are not too convenient to fly. And from my limited experience there have been more visa challenges to get US visa than European, or Swiss visa from developing countries, in Asia or Africa, to begin with. For most Asian countries, SE Asia, South Asia, flight to Europe is one hop while to the US East coast requires two hops (or sometimes three including connections). I also note that proposal by ITU to move to NYC may be strategic. I understand there are no perfect or ideal solution. Making it to NYC is better for most people in the Americas, at least for the convenience. Keeping the status quo sounds bad in general (for me), but this time, I think it's safer to ask for Geneva. AND, in case NYC is selected, we should request additional measures for visa and other elements. best, izumi from Tokyo 2010/9/6 Norbert Klein : > On 09/07/2010 08:19 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Milton, some of your arguments make little sense, sorry -- we are >> talking about CS worldwide, not American CS concentration in a 300 mi >> radius around NY. In this case, let us move it to São Paulo -- the >> metropolitan area alone has thousands of registered NGOs... >> >> I think that having to choose only between NY and Geneva, I would >> stick to Geneva. Moving to NY would still keep it in the "Elizabeth >> Arden" circuit which does not change things much, except that Wolf's >> arguments regarding this move continue to make sense to me. >> >> And there is the non-trivial visa question -- it is an obvious mistake >> to think Swiss visas are as difficult to obtain as a US one. >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. > > Living in Cambodia (with a German passport) I have, over the years, > helped many Cambodians to process their Schengen visa applications for > conference participation or studies, all without any rejection; I have > tried also to help others with US visa applications - unfortunately the > process was more difficult, and it did not work out in several cases. > > Of course this is based on several dozen cases only - maybe overall > statistics may lead to different results. > > > Norbert > > -- > 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 Law, Rules, and Common Sense > Sunday, 5.9.2010 > > http://tinyurl.com/366f5f4 > (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 > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Sep 7 00:50:28 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 10:20:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFBF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C859323.3030902@cafonso.ca> <4C85955D.8010504@gmx.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFBF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hello, This is not a trivial issue of a choice in a tourism destination, but a question of participation in a summit that sets the next course of Internet Governance. The strategic implications of this move (to UN, NY) relates to ITU's business ambitions for an enhanced role in Internet Governance. Another dimension of this issue is that the move to US is that it would shut out part of the participation. In principle it is not acceptable to choose a destination that would permit 999 out of a thousand probable participants. US happens to be a destination that would grant visas to 99, not 999 of those interested in participation. It is not alright for the Civil Society to leave this choice of venue unchallenged. ( Also, I wonder if we should 'appeal' to the ITU to reconsider. Should we give so much importance to a Trade Union due to the earlier accident of its role in the WSIS Geneva and Tunis? Why don't we make a representation to the UN Secretary General that the WSIS should be a multi-stakeholder effort? ) Sivasubramanian M On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Lee W McKnigh wrote: > To summarize: > > A WSIS 2011 venue has been decided by ITU; and accepted by UN HQ. It's good > for some - such as people coming from Caribbean - and yeah ok us New Yorkers > too. > And a long way from Asia. > > Instead of discussing what we might hope to accomplish in 2011, or in > Vilnius, we plan to protest - what exactly? New York City? Jay-Z? > > CS is showing its strategic acumen again for sure....ok not so much. > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [ > aizu at anr.org] > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 10:09 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Klein > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 > > From the edge of the "Far East", both Geneva and NYC are not > too convenient to fly. And from my limited experience there have been > more visa challenges to get US visa than European, or Swiss visa > from developing countries, in Asia or Africa, to begin with. > > For most Asian countries, SE Asia, South Asia, flight to Europe > is one hop while to the US East coast requires two hops (or sometimes > three including connections). > > I also note that proposal by ITU to move to NYC may be strategic. > > I understand there are no perfect or ideal solution. Making it to NYC > is better for most people in the Americas, at least for the convenience. > > Keeping the status quo sounds bad in general (for me), but this time, > I think it's safer to ask for Geneva. AND, in case NYC is selected, we > should request additional measures for visa and other elements. > > best, > > izumi from Tokyo > > > > 2010/9/6 Norbert Klein : > > On 09/07/2010 08:19 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Milton, some of your arguments make little sense, sorry -- we are > >> talking about CS worldwide, not American CS concentration in a 300 mi > >> radius around NY. In this case, let us move it to São Paulo -- the > >> metropolitan area alone has thousands of registered NGOs... > >> > >> I think that having to choose only between NY and Geneva, I would > >> stick to Geneva. Moving to NY would still keep it in the "Elizabeth > >> Arden" circuit which does not change things much, except that Wolf's > >> arguments regarding this move continue to make sense to me. > >> > >> And there is the non-trivial visa question -- it is an obvious mistake > >> to think Swiss visas are as difficult to obtain as a US one. > >> > >> frt rgds > >> > >> --c.a. > > > > Living in Cambodia (with a German passport) I have, over the years, > > helped many Cambodians to process their Schengen visa applications for > > conference participation or studies, all without any rejection; I have > > tried also to help others with US visa applications - unfortunately the > > process was more difficult, and it did not work out in several cases. > > > > Of course this is based on several dozen cases only - maybe overall > > statistics may lead to different results. > > > > > > Norbert > > > > -- > > 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 Law, Rules, and Common Sense > > Sunday, 5.9.2010 > > > > http://tinyurl.com/366f5f4 > > (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 > > > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ceo at bnnrc.net Tue Sep 7 01:31:54 2010 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 11:31:54 +0600 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 : Regarding Asia References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C859323.3030902@cafonso.ca> <4C85955D.8010504@gmx.net>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFBF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I We fully support Lee W Mcknight position. We would like to discuss regarding WSIS 2011 venue during IGF 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: "Lee W McKnight" To: ; "Izumi AIZU" ; "Norbert Klein" Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 10:27 AM Subject: RE: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 To summarize: A WSIS 2011 venue has been decided by ITU; and accepted by UN HQ. It's good for some - such as people coming from Caribbean - and yeah ok us New Yorkers too. And a long way from Asia. Instead of discussing what we might hope to accomplish in 2011, or in Vilnius, we plan to protest - what exactly? New York City? Jay-Z? CS is showing its strategic acumen again for sure....ok not so much. Lee ________________________________________ From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [aizu at anr.org] Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 10:09 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Klein Subject: Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 >From the edge of the "Far East", both Geneva and NYC are not too convenient to fly. And from my limited experience there have been more visa challenges to get US visa than European, or Swiss visa from developing countries, in Asia or Africa, to begin with. For most Asian countries, SE Asia, South Asia, flight to Europe is one hop while to the US East coast requires two hops (or sometimes three including connections). I also note that proposal by ITU to move to NYC may be strategic. I understand there are no perfect or ideal solution. Making it to NYC is better for most people in the Americas, at least for the convenience. Keeping the status quo sounds bad in general (for me), but this time, I think it's safer to ask for Geneva. AND, in case NYC is selected, we should request additional measures for visa and other elements. best, izumi from Tokyo 2010/9/6 Norbert Klein : > On 09/07/2010 08:19 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Milton, some of your arguments make little sense, sorry -- we are >> talking about CS worldwide, not American CS concentration in a 300 mi >> radius around NY. In this case, let us move it to São Paulo -- the >> metropolitan area alone has thousands of registered NGOs... >> >> I think that having to choose only between NY and Geneva, I would >> stick to Geneva. Moving to NY would still keep it in the "Elizabeth >> Arden" circuit which does not change things much, except that Wolf's >> arguments regarding this move continue to make sense to me. >> >> And there is the non-trivial visa question -- it is an obvious mistake >> to think Swiss visas are as difficult to obtain as a US one. >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. > > Living in Cambodia (with a German passport) I have, over the years, > helped many Cambodians to process their Schengen visa applications for > conference participation or studies, all without any rejection; I have > tried also to help others with US visa applications - unfortunately the > process was more difficult, and it did not work out in several cases. > > Of course this is based on several dozen cases only - maybe overall > statistics may lead to different results. > > > Norbert > > -- > 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 Law, Rules, and Common Sense > Sunday, 5.9.2010 > > http://tinyurl.com/366f5f4 > (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 > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Sep 7 02:22:13 2010 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 23:22:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <4C859A6E.70907@cafonso.ca> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C8594C8.80005@cafonso.ca> <654350.8385.qm@web120512.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C859A6E.70907@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <88684.89879.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Well, it gives a little context to your comment Carlos. But also, of the G20 democracies, the US probably has the most free speech, unless it's of a sex-related matter of course. And you allow a greater level of freedom and you allow all sorts to have their say including someone in "some idiotic church in Florida" who decides to advocate burning "copies of the Quran on September 11". You even allow Glenn Beck. But just as long as it's not about sex! David ----- Original Message ---- From: Carlos A. Afonso To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein Sent: Tue, 7 September, 2010 11:50:38 AM Subject: Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 ... but it is an entirely new thread of discussion... :) --c.a. On 09/06/2010 10:43 PM, David Goldstein wrote: > Carlos, > > I suggest you read this article by Nicholas Kristof to get more of an idea. To > question where America is going is simplisitc - it's a very complicated >country. > Much like any other with good and bad. Anyway, the article is at > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/opinion/05kristof.html. > > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Carlos A. Afonso > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Sivasubramanian M > Cc: Milton L Mueller; William Drake > > Sent: Tue, 7 September, 2010 11:26:32 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 > > To make things worse, some idiotic church in Florida has just decided to > burn copies of the Quran on September 11... forcing an American general > from the Afghan field to go on national TV to ask "please do not do it, > it will put our soldiers in peril here...". > > I mean, where is that country going to??? > > --c.a. > > On 09/06/2010 06:58 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >> Dear Milton, >> >> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Milton L Mueller> > wrote: >> >> I view the groundswell for Geneva on this list to be a bit >> self-serving. Of course your Geneva-based orgs want it to stay >> there. I don’t see why IGC should endorse that as a “pro civil >> society” position. >> >> >> The only argument of any merit is the visa difficulty issue – if, as >> Tracy calls into question, that difference still exists. >> >> >> >> Europe is emotionally healthier than the United States. US, in its >> paranoia, has become a destination for strip searches and it is becoming >> increasingly unpleasant for the rest of the world to travel to the US. >> Until this changes, US is a destination unfit for international events, >> especially the ones that require International Public participation. >> >> Sivasubramanian M. >> >> >> I have my own self-interest, of course, but it seems to me that WSIS >> and IGF both are highly Euro-centric operations and it would be good >> to move it away from Europe for at least once. Whether its NY or >> Vancouver or Hong Kong or Panama matters less to me, although of >> course NYC is most convenient to me. >> >> Wolfgang’s argument that there are more CS organizations in Geneva >> seems false to me; there are probably more CS organizations in the >> 300-mi radius of NYC (which includes Montreal and probably also >> Toronto) than anywhere else in the world. >> >> As a strict empirical test of the “reduced participation” claim, let >> me point out that the March 2004 WGIG-inspired meeting in New York >> was more widely attended than any subsequent WGIG consultation. I >> think you can count on a bang-up turnout, if nothing else, if you >> hold it in NY. >> >> *From:* William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >> ] >> *Sent:* Monday, September 06, 2010 3:23 PM >> *To:* Sivasubramanian M >> *Cc:* Governance List >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 >> >> Hi >> >> Just read the ICC's statement, which states in part, "The WSIS >> action lines Forum events in Geneva have drawn upon the fact that >> many key organizations are located in Geneva, and the participation >> of many stakeholders, business included, has been facilitated by the >> fact that other WSIS related activities take place around the same >> dates. This has enabled participation by many because it took into >> account the limited time, financial and human resources of many >> across stakeholder groups. Organizing the WSIS action lines Forum >> 2011 in New York risks decreasing participation because it would >> require extensive travel for those participating in the other WSIS >> related activities in May in Geneva. Feedback from ICC BASIS members >> and other stakeholders indicates that obtaining visas for the US is >> extremely difficult for many particularly from developing countries. >> This would in turn decrease the range of participants. ICC BASIS >> supports having the WSIS action lines Forum 2011 hosted in Geneva, >> or by the next lead facilitator, UNESCO in Paris." >> >> >>http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/ICC_BASIS_stmt_re_WSIS_Forum_2011_venue_FINAL_6Sept10.pdf >>f >> >> >> Is this a reasonable position from an IGC perspective…? >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> On Sep 6, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >> >> >> >> 2010/9/6 William Drake> > >> >> Hi, >> >> We can toss around ideas about where an ideal venue that causes the >> least hassle for the most people might be, but the WSIS Forum will >> be held in either New York or Geneva. Lee is probably right about >> mainstreaming; the question is, on what/whose terms? Personally, I >> have never noticed that all that many CS people actually attend the >> WSIS Forums in the first place; they're certainly not much in >> evidence on the panels, which are largely selected by ITU on an >> "expert" rather than "stakeholder" basis. But to the extent that >> IG/ICT-oriented CS people do wish to attend, one would think there's >> probably greater synergies and cost effectiveness for them in >> keeping it in Geneva during the same two week bloc as the IGF >> consultation (assuming those remain in Geneva) and the CSTD. For CS >> people working in the other areas that are in the UN NY's bailiwick, >> e.g. disarmament et al, NY is obviously more convenient, but would >> they be all that interested enough in the typical WSIS Forum topics >> to attend? Unclear. And I suppose one could widen the optic >> further and wonder whether this might fit in with larger discussions >> about the management of ICT-related activities connected to DESA… >> >> Should there be an IGC response to ITU's "Open Consultation" (means >> we can use their website, not enter the building), or would >> consensus being difficult to achieve? >> >> If CS does not assert its stakes in WSIS process, the WSIS panels >> could be engineered to lead to conclusions that the ITU desires, >> which would be a step back from the progress that the IGF has made. >> >> There needs to be an IGC response. Also, IGC could reach out to fair >> and neutral international organizations to object to and alter the >> process. >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> On Sep 6, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > Speaking as an academic for whom I admit New York City is >> convenient and would lowering my personal costs and logistics >> hassles, we can agree that UN venue decisions have impacts that >> may vary depending upon where one is coming from. Geneva is a >> fine (expensive) city, New York has its virtues too. >> > >> > A move to New York for wsis 2011 would to me signal a >> mainstreaming of IG issues wthin UN system; as would >> establishment of a permanent secretariat in yet a 3rd >> (developing?) location. >> > >> > But Wolfgang, the argument that it would be more difficult to >> get media/public attention - in New York City - doesn't make >> much sense to me. In principle it should be easier. There's >> certainly plenty of media outlets hanging around already looking >> for things to talk and write about. >> > >> > Anyway, as I suggested before, while civil society has some >> success at substantive issues around IG, venue/location >> decisions I am afraid remain power politics/business as usual >> choices. >> > >> > Lee >> > ________________________________________ >> > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de >> ] >> > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 11:33 AM >> > To: wsis-info at itu.int >> > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 >> > >> > Dear friends >> > >> > I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to >> New York of the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring >> WSIS implementation forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move >> to NewYork will weaken in particular the involvement of civil >> society and the academic community as important stakeholders in >> the WSIS process. A large number of civil society organisations, >> including represenations of organisations from developing >> countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving >> the event to New York would create additional costs and logistic >> problems for them which would result in lower participation of >> civil society organisations. This would certainly undermine the >> multistakeholder nature of the WSIS implementaiton process. >> > >> > Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be >> that the important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow >> of more important political and security issues which dominate >> the day to day UN acitvities in New York. The WSIS Forum would >> be just "another conference" and would have difficulties to get >> the needed public attention. >> > >> > Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union >> has its annual Future of the Internet Week meetings under the >> Hungarian Presidency in Budapest. >> > >> > >> > Regards >> > >> > Wolfgang Kleinwächter >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 >> >> *********************************************************** >> >> > -- 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Sep 7 02:25:53 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 08:25:53 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> ICANN is travelling around the world doing outreach, IGF is travelling around the world doing outreach, why the WSIS Forum, which needs outreach, should stay in traditional places? The "Annual WSIS Forum" should travel - between 2011 and 2015 - around the world to the five regions and come back as "WSIS III" in 2015 to a more neutral place. 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 email at hakik.org Tue Sep 7 02:32:48 2010 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 12:32:48 +0600 Subject: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20100907063456.E110D905B0@npogroups.org> A well thought and deserving idea, which I strongly support. Hakik At 12:25 PM 9/7/2010, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >ICANN is travelling around the world doing >outreach, IGF is travelling around the world >doing outreach, why the WSIS Forum, which needs >outreach, should stay in traditional places? The >"Annual WSIS Forum" should travel - between 2011 >and 2015 - around the world to the five regions >and come back as "WSIS III" in 2015 to a more neutral place. > > >Wolfgang > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Sep 7 02:38:24 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 12:08:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang, How do we promote this idea and make this the norm? Is there an effective way to act on this thought? Sivasubramanian M 2010/9/7 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > ICANN is travelling around the world doing outreach, IGF is travelling > around the world doing outreach, why the WSIS Forum, which needs outreach, > should stay in traditional places? The "Annual WSIS Forum" should travel - > between 2011 and 2015 - around the world to the five regions and come back > as "WSIS III" in 2015 to a more neutral place. > > > Wolfgang > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ceo at bnnrc.net Tue Sep 7 02:42:16 2010 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 12:42:16 +0600 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <3A786E3FDA534AF58C145D6FD9896F8A@ceo> We very much support Kleinwächter, Wolfgang's nice statement. 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: ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" To: ; "Milton L Mueller" ; "Governance List" ; "William Drake" ; "Sivasubramanian M" Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 12:25 PM Subject: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 > ICANN is travelling around the world doing outreach, IGF is travelling > around the world doing outreach, why the WSIS Forum, which needs outreach, > should stay in traditional places? The "Annual WSIS Forum" should travel - > between 2011 and 2015 - around the world to the five regions and come back > as "WSIS III" in 2015 to a more neutral place. > > > 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Sep 7 03:29:12 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 15:29:12 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC general meeting in Vilnius, 13 September Message-ID: <060760D6-8754-45EF-A178-E8AF14FAD0F3@ciroap.org> I am arranging our usual IGC general meeting for 13 September in Vilnius. I hope to have the venue confirmed soon, but at this time, you can pencil in "Room 3, 17:30". There will be no decisions taken at the meeting, and we will summarise to the list afterwards. The agenda for discussion includes: * Review of activities since last meeting * IGC co-coordinator elections * IGC voting procedures * IGC charter review * MAG questionnaire * General business If you have any items to add to this agenda, please reply to this message. Thanks! -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From meryem at marzouki.info Tue Sep 7 04:31:09 2010 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 10:31:09 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4C50FF8D-DB71-445C-B188-3EBFD5E885FE@marzouki.info> Le 7 sept. 10 à 08:25, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : > ICANN is travelling around the world doing outreach, IGF is > travelling around the world doing outreach, why the WSIS Forum, > which needs outreach, should stay in traditional places? Because, and this is obvious, they are of a different nature and they have different objectives. - ICANN is a private organization which attendance is mainly corporate business organizations, and has the needed money to bring some CS on board (seatbelt fastened). - IGF is still an UFO (institutionally speaking) which raison d'etre is heavily relying on CS (and IGOs). Conversely, CS and IGOs find it the unique place where they may rise their profile in the IG and related fields. Both ICANN and IGF, in order to justify the necessity of their existence and unicity, *have* to reach out to (or to organize meetings in, at least) different countries [on a side note, who can seriously state that IGF 2009 has changed anything in Egypt re: IG matters?] - WSIS Forum is the (recently) institutionalized follow-up to WSIS, which was, if I'm not wrong, a UN intergovernmental process led by the ITU (and this was by no mean an accident, contrarily to what someone said on this list). Since the end of WSIS, well before becoming the "WSIS Forum", it has been struggling for its existence and necessity and for taking over the other two. Now, what it needs is certainly not to travel around the world, but to seat itself as such at the UN headquarters (which is in NYC). ICANN showing its own well know problems, and considering the fact that whether it travels around the world or not, this doesn't change the essence of the organization and its decisions, let's talk about IGF and WSIS Forum: The former is more inclusive, but is toothless, the latter is likely to mainstream IG issues and make decisions, but is above all an intergovernmental process, in pure UN sense. CS may be part of both, but probably not showing the same profile (and consequently not the same framing of issues) at each venue. It's not necessarily about the height of this profile, but really about its orientation (susbtance) and its nature (mainly CSOs or mainly individuals). In my opinion, there is the strategic choice. Not in counting CS participation from different countries at one venue or the other. As regards IGOs, they can survive (in this field) only at IGF. 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Sep 7 06:36:57 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 12:36:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum location : the main issues Message-ID: Dear all, Discussions on the list regarding the proposal to hold WSIS Forum 2011 in New York highlight that there are several parallel and interrelated dimensions. In a nutshell, the main elements to consider seem to me as follows (and the rationale for each is detailed below) : - the WSIS Forum should not become an overall WSIS review but is one of the two legs of the implementation process, focusing on development and the catalysis of projects - irrespective of the issue of the location, the positive trend towards multi-stakeholder preparation should be continued, through the formation for instance of a MAG - the choice of location could be initially linked to the lead agency in chairmanship of UNGIS in a given year, but geographic rotation is desirable in a longer term perspective to avoid holding the meeting only in Europe or the US - visa and cost issues are not in favor of New York, and would need to be addressed if New York is retained this year or in the future, to ensure broad participation - a decoupling in time of the WSIS Forum and the May meetings in Geneva could be beneficial - raising awareness among New York diplomats is a worthy objective, but should be timed appropriately to maximize impact and avoid backlash - the discussion on the WSIS Forum and its future should keep in mind its desirable articulation with the IGF and the possible contribution of both to the preparation of the general WSIS review in 2015 (whatever name it takes). More detailed arguments below. 1) The natural function of the WSIS Forum We know it is not an explicit decision from the Summit, as it emerged from the organization of the "cluster of WSIS-related events". The shift to the label WSIS Forum last year indicates a desire to make it the annual review of the progress in implementation in all aspects, including Internet Governance. In other terms, it is a move to make it an overall umbrella, covering also the IGF (cf. the idea that has been floated to ultimately merge the two) and to somehow preempt the review role of the CSTD. However, it makes more sense to consider it as *the second leg of the implementation process* : the IGF dealing with policy issues and the WSIS Forum dealing more with actual projects and concrete actions : the various actors describing their programs, the difficulties encountered on the ground, and exchanging best practices that can be replicated. Discussion on location should not forget this *first fundamental alternative* : the WSIS Forum as the overall implementation review process (overseeing the IGF) or IGF and WSIS Forum as two complementary processes to catalyze progress. The first option could lead to internet governance issues becoming again the center political battle and the real development agenda being sidelined. The Plan of Action is more than Internet Governance and the concrete projects dimension deserves to be fully addressed. 2) Making its preparation more multi-stakeholder The WSIS Forum has adopted from the beginning an open door policy, which is a good thing. Furthermore, open consultations (however limited) have been introduced last year and this is a noteworthy progress, probably obtained because the IGF practice set a benchmark in that respect (a good example of the percolation of the IGF method). However, the Agenda, the format and the selection of panelist are still under the responsibility of the organizing Agencies (mostly led by ITU). The creation of *a Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) for the WSIS Forum* would improve the preparatory process and guarantee equal representation of the different groups. The modalities of preparation of the meeting are probably as important as its location. 3) The role of the convenor Initially, the meeting (the cluster of action lines) was organized by the ITU alone with the meeting taking place in ITU premises. More recently, the concept is that this event is organized by the "lead facilitating Agencies" (ITU, Unesco, DESA and UNCTAD if I'm not mistaken), even if the ITU maintains a prominent role and most of the meetings still take place in the ITU building. It would probably make sense to push the logic a bit further and consider that, as they rotate in their chairmanship of the UNGIS, the *lead facilitators rotate accordingly in their responsibility to be the convenor/organizer of the WSIS Forum*. In that context, holding the WSIS Forum in New York should not be considered as a permanent move, but as corresponding to DESA being in the rotating chairmanship. Is it DESA's turn next year ? or Unesco ? And if it is Unesco, would they be ready to do so, now or later ? 4) Geographic rotation Discussions on the list and Wolfgang's comments in particular point to the potential benefits of holding the WSIS Forum in different parts of the world. The choice should not be limited to Europe and the United States because of the location of the lead agencies. In this respect, again, any holding of the WSIS Forum in New York in 2011 or later, should not be considered as a permanent move but at most as a first step towards *a geographical rotation facilitating outreach* to different regions of the world. 5) Ensuring broad participation (Visas and other logistical issues) A clear objective for the IGC is maximizing participation. The difficulty to obtain visas for the US (and costs) is probably the major objection regarding holding the WSIS Forum in New York. However, Anriette and Shaila have highlighted that significant events have been organized in New York with appropriate participation form actors around the world, provided some specific measure are taken (fellowships in particular). Likewise, Milton and Ginger highlight the capacity to attract organizations from the North and Latin America that have cost problems flying to Europe (this is the reason why geographical rotation is suggested). So, as Meryem rightly reminds us, the* visa and cost factors are not the only elements to take into account* : the political background is probably more important. In any case, *a special effort *in terms of visa obtention for all participants and financial support is a prerequisite if the WSIS Forum goes to New York this year or later. 6) Timing The WSIS Forum has traditionally been co-located with the IGF consultations and the CSTD meeting in May in Geneva, indeed facilitating participation and reducing costs. However, the whole compact period of two to three weeks is relatively difficult to manage in heavy agendas and schedules. Furthermore, if (as mentioned in point 1 above) the WSIS Forum is mostly about practical implementation rather than covering everything including Internet Governance, then the overlap in terms of participants is limited. *Decoupling the WSIS Forum in time from the IGF consultations and CSTD meetings* could even diversify the participation and help focus the WSIS Forum on the development agenda rather than a rehash of Internet Governance issues. Finally, leaving some time between the WSIS Forum and the CSTD meeting would allow the CSTD to receive a formal input from the WSIS Forum, something that is not possible when the two meetings are only days apart, as it is today. 7) Capacity to influence New York diplomats Provided the WSIS Forum is truly multi-stakeholder, open and participatory (including in its preparation), there could be some merit in *exposing New York diplomats to this particular methodology*. But it can be a two-edged sword, if it triggers a counter-reaction from more traditionally inclined governments that could negatively impact the discussions in the UN GA in 2011 on "improvements" to the IGF. On a side note, Lee indicated on the list that media presence in New York could be a way to get attention. But is media attention what is needed in 2011 or a stronger focus on concrete projects ? 8) The 2015 perspective There will be a general review of the WSIS implementation in 2015 (this is paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda). And there is a great likelihood that some countries will push in the ITU Plenipotentiary for a new Summit (a WSIS III) at that date. However, if the multistakeholder approach consecrated in Tunis is to be respected, an event in 2015 (whatever its name) *should **not ** be held along the same format as in Geneva or Tunis*. It must be a truly multi-stakeholder format, building upon the experience of both the IGF and the WSIS Forum. In such a context, the WSIS Forum and the IGF in the next five years would be *the two natural preparatory spaces* for the two dimensions of implementation : concrete projects and programs on the one hand and Internet Governance on the other. This eliminates the need for rigid PrepComs and could encourage the two spaces to progressively catalyze proposals (recommendations ?) to be endorsed by the 2015 event. I hope this helps clarify the challenges and the different dimensions of the debate and can facilitate the preparation of an IGC position. My three cents (because the post is long :-) Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Tue Sep 7 08:58:06 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:58:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum location : the main issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Saisissez du texte, l'adresse d'un site Web ou importez un document à traduire. Annuler Écouter hi Explanations such as argued by Bertrand are largely satisfactory and sufficiently detailed in relation to the Tunis Agenda and Action Plan of Geneva. Certainly, organized the forum of the WSIS in New York may not be an handicap for a good representation of multi-stakeholders. Some concern remains access in the U.S. will remain selective ie exclusive. However, if we consider the chapters 90,91,93,95,95,96,97,98 Tunis Agenda, should be to support the version of Bertrand geographical rotation Forum World Summit on the information society. But there are other factors will arise, especially for most African countries! Do they have sufficiently developed their national ICT strategy? Is there a dashboard for the development of ICT infrastructure into rural areas? After Tunis, Africa she became aware of ICT issues ?.... So many questions which largely justifies the arguments of Bertrand on geographical rotation of the forum. 2015 will serve as a thermometer. Écouter Lire phonétiquement SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN 2010/9/7 Bertrand de La Chapelle > Dear all, > > Discussions on the list regarding the proposal to hold WSIS Forum 2011 in > New York highlight that there are several parallel and interrelated > dimensions. In a nutshell, the main elements to consider seem to me as > follows (and the rationale for each is detailed below) : > > - the WSIS Forum should not become an overall WSIS review but is one of the > two legs of the implementation process, focusing on development and the > catalysis of projects > - irrespective of the issue of the location, the positive trend towards > multi-stakeholder preparation should be continued, through the formation for > instance of a MAG > - the choice of location could be initially linked to the lead agency in > chairmanship of UNGIS in a given year, but geographic rotation is desirable > in a longer term perspective to avoid holding the meeting only in Europe or > the US > - visa and cost issues are not in favor of New York, and would need to be > addressed if New York is retained this year or in the future, to ensure > broad participation > - a decoupling in time of the WSIS Forum and the May meetings in Geneva > could be beneficial > - raising awareness among New York diplomats is a worthy objective, but > should be timed appropriately to maximize impact and avoid backlash > - the discussion on the WSIS Forum and its future should keep in mind its > desirable articulation with the IGF and the possible contribution of both to > the preparation of the general WSIS review in 2015 (whatever name it > takes). > > More detailed arguments below. > > 1) The natural function of the WSIS Forum > > We know it is not an explicit decision from the Summit, as it emerged from > the organization of the "cluster of WSIS-related events". The shift to the > label WSIS Forum last year indicates a desire to make it the annual review > of the progress in implementation in all aspects, including Internet > Governance. In other terms, it is a move to make it an overall umbrella, > covering also the IGF (cf. the idea that has been floated to ultimately > merge the two) and to somehow preempt the review role of the CSTD. However, > it makes more sense to consider it as *the second leg of the > implementation process* : the IGF dealing with policy issues and the WSIS > Forum dealing more with actual projects and concrete actions : the various > actors describing their programs, the difficulties encountered on the > ground, and exchanging best practices that can be replicated. Discussion on > location should not forget this *first fundamental alternative* : the WSIS > Forum as the overall implementation review process (overseeing the IGF) > or IGF and WSIS Forum as two complementary processes to catalyze progress. > The first option could lead to internet governance issues becoming again the > center political battle and the real development agenda being sidelined. The > Plan of Action is more than Internet Governance and the concrete projects > dimension deserves to be fully addressed. > > 2) Making its preparation more multi-stakeholder > > The WSIS Forum has adopted from the beginning an open door policy, which is > a good thing. Furthermore, open consultations (however limited) have been > introduced last year and this is a noteworthy progress, probably obtained > because the IGF practice set a benchmark in that respect (a good example of > the percolation of the IGF method). However, the Agenda, the format and the > selection of panelist are still under the responsibility of the organizing > Agencies (mostly led by ITU). The creation of *a Multi-stakeholder > Advisory Group (MAG) for the WSIS Forum* would improve the preparatory > process and guarantee equal representation of the different groups. The > modalities of preparation of the meeting are probably as important as its > location. > > 3) The role of the convenor > > Initially, the meeting (the cluster of action lines) was organized by the > ITU alone with the meeting taking place in ITU premises. More recently, the > concept is that this event is organized by the "lead facilitating Agencies" > (ITU, Unesco, DESA and UNCTAD if I'm not mistaken), even if the ITU > maintains a prominent role and most of the meetings still take place in the > ITU building. It would probably make sense to push the logic a bit further > and consider that, as they rotate in their chairmanship of the UNGIS, the > *lead facilitators rotate accordingly in their responsibility to be the > convenor/organizer of the WSIS Forum*. In that context, holding the WSIS > Forum in New York should not be considered as a permanent move, but as > corresponding to DESA being in the rotating chairmanship. Is it DESA's turn > next year ? or Unesco ? And if it is Unesco, would they be ready to do so, > now or later ? > > 4) Geographic rotation > > Discussions on the list and Wolfgang's comments in particular point to the > potential benefits of holding the WSIS Forum in different parts of the > world. The choice should not be limited to Europe and the United States > because of the location of the lead agencies. In this respect, again, any > holding of the WSIS Forum in New York in 2011 or later, should not be > considered as a permanent move but at most as a first step towards *a > geographical rotation facilitating outreach* to different regions of the > world. > > 5) Ensuring broad participation (Visas and other logistical issues) > > A clear objective for the IGC is maximizing participation. The difficulty > to obtain visas for the US (and costs) is probably the major objection > regarding holding the WSIS Forum in New York. However, Anriette and Shaila > have highlighted that significant events have been organized in New York > with appropriate participation form actors around the world, provided some > specific measure are taken (fellowships in particular). Likewise, Milton and > Ginger highlight the capacity to attract organizations from the North and > Latin America that have cost problems flying to Europe (this is the reason > why geographical rotation is suggested). So, as Meryem rightly reminds us, > the* visa and cost factors are not the only elements to take into account*: the political background is probably more important. In any case, > *a special effort *in terms of visa obtention for all participants and > financial support is a prerequisite if the WSIS Forum goes to New York this > year or later. > > 6) Timing > > The WSIS Forum has traditionally been co-located with the IGF consultations > and the CSTD meeting in May in Geneva, indeed facilitating participation and > reducing costs. However, the whole compact period of two to three weeks is > relatively difficult to manage in heavy agendas and schedules. Furthermore, > if (as mentioned in point 1 above) the WSIS Forum is mostly about practical > implementation rather than covering everything including Internet > Governance, then the overlap in terms of participants is limited. *Decoupling > the WSIS Forum in time from the IGF consultations and CSTD meetings* could > even diversify the participation and help focus the WSIS Forum on the > development agenda rather than a rehash of Internet Governance issues. > Finally, leaving some time between the WSIS Forum and the CSTD meeting would > allow the CSTD to receive a formal input from the WSIS Forum, something that > is not possible when the two meetings are only days apart, as it is today. > > 7) Capacity to influence New York diplomats > > Provided the WSIS Forum is truly multi-stakeholder, open and participatory > (including in its preparation), there could be some merit in *exposing New > York diplomats to this particular methodology*. But it can be a two-edged > sword, if it triggers a counter-reaction from more traditionally inclined > governments that could negatively impact the discussions in the UN GA in > 2011 on "improvements" to the IGF. > On a side note, Lee indicated on the list that media presence in New York > could be a way to get attention. But is media attention what is needed in > 2011 or a stronger focus on concrete projects ? > > 8) The 2015 perspective > > There will be a general review of the WSIS implementation in 2015 (this is > paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda). And there is a great likelihood that > some countries will push in the ITU Plenipotentiary for a new Summit (a WSIS > III) at that date. However, if the multistakeholder approach consecrated in > Tunis is to be respected, an event in 2015 (whatever its name) *should ** > not** be held along the same format as in Geneva or Tunis*. It must be a > truly multi-stakeholder format, building upon the experience of both the IGF > and the WSIS Forum. In such a context, the WSIS Forum and the IGF in the > next five years would be *the two natural preparatory spaces* for the two > dimensions of implementation : concrete projects and programs on the one > hand and Internet Governance on the other. This eliminates the need for > rigid PrepComs and could encourage the two spaces to progressively catalyze > proposals (recommendations ?) to be endorsed by the 2015 event. > > I hope this helps clarify the challenges and the different dimensions of > the debate and can facilitate the preparation of an IGC position. My three > cents (because the post is long :-) > > Best > > Bertrand > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Tue Sep 7 10:43:39 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 10:43:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum location : the main issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Baudouin, >>After Tunis, Africa she became aware of ICT issues ?.... I like the question mark ;) and I understand you're listing a number of questions that would justify, in your view, the argument of geographic rotation. But just so that nobody gets confused, you and I know that Africa has been aware of ICT issues long before WSIS, namely through projects such as community/rural telecentres, trying to build on the remarkable heritage of community radios. And countries had also started developing comprehensive national strategies and policy frameworks a number of years before the summit, all of that with the participation of national/local CS organizations and the support of a couple of international agencies. I guess WSIS has made us realize that our challenges are shared by many others around the globe, and may have helped push ICT policy items near the top of national policy agendas (at least policymakers in many more countries are hearing much more of ICT than before). Awareness is work in progress, most of the time, until the problem goes away. Geographic rotation of a highly visible meeting is always a good contribution to raising awareness wherever the meeting is held. The substantive point I take away from your post is that holding a meeting such as the WSIS Forum in Africa (by virtue of geo-rotation, and with a good turnout of CS), will probably have a greater positive impact on policymaking in the region than at many other places, partly because of the differential in policy development and/or political will, etc. I'd agree with you on that. On the broader discussion, it was also my impression that the choice of the venue in 2011 is a one-time decision (not a commitment for all future editions), and questions of strategy should drive our views although I agree visa and cost issues are not trivial. And by strategy I mean to include not just the negotiations that will take place during the Forum, but also ways we could ensure that visa requests be denied the least possible, if at all (did the accreditation system work well during WSIS? is it still in place? if not would we rather see that reiterated here?), and that CS impact is not limited to the number of CS people physically present at the venue (if possible by attracting some international media outlets around whatever may be taking place on the ground in order to bring attention to the issues most important to CS). Best, Mawaki On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > Saisissez du texte, l'adresse d'un site Web ou importez un document à > traduire. > Annuler > Écouter > hi > Explanations such as argued by Bertrand are largely satisfactory and > sufficiently detailed in relation to the Tunis Agenda and Action Plan of > Geneva. > Certainly, organized the forum of the WSIS in New York may not be an > handicap for a good representation of multi-stakeholders. > Some concern remains access in the U.S. will remain selective ie exclusive. > However, if we consider the chapters 90,91,93,95,95,96,97,98 Tunis Agenda, > should be to support the version of Bertrand geographical rotation Forum > World Summit on the information society. > But there are other factors will arise, especially for most African > countries! > Do they have sufficiently developed their national ICT strategy? Is there a > dashboard for the development of ICT infrastructure into rural areas? > After Tunis, Africa she became aware of ICT issues ?.... > So many questions which largely justifies the arguments of Bertrand on > geographical rotation of the forum. > 2015 will serve as a thermometer. > Écouter > Lire phonétiquement > > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > > > > 2010/9/7 Bertrand de La Chapelle > >> Dear all, >> >> Discussions on the list regarding the proposal to hold WSIS Forum 2011 in >> New York highlight that there are several parallel and interrelated >> dimensions. In a nutshell, the main elements to consider seem to me as >> follows (and the rationale for each is detailed below) : >> >> - the WSIS Forum should not become an overall WSIS review but is one of >> the two legs of the implementation process, focusing on development and the >> catalysis of projects >> - irrespective of the issue of the location, the positive trend towards >> multi-stakeholder preparation should be continued, through the formation for >> instance of a MAG >> - the choice of location could be initially linked to the lead agency in >> chairmanship of UNGIS in a given year, but geographic rotation is desirable >> in a longer term perspective to avoid holding the meeting only in Europe or >> the US >> - visa and cost issues are not in favor of New York, and would need to be >> addressed if New York is retained this year or in the future, to ensure >> broad participation >> - a decoupling in time of the WSIS Forum and the May meetings in Geneva >> could be beneficial >> - raising awareness among New York diplomats is a worthy objective, but >> should be timed appropriately to maximize impact and avoid backlash >> - the discussion on the WSIS Forum and its future should keep in mind its >> desirable articulation with the IGF and the possible contribution of both to >> the preparation of the general WSIS review in 2015 (whatever name it >> takes). >> >> More detailed arguments below. >> >> 1) The natural function of the WSIS Forum >> >> We know it is not an explicit decision from the Summit, as it emerged from >> the organization of the "cluster of WSIS-related events". The shift to the >> label WSIS Forum last year indicates a desire to make it the annual review >> of the progress in implementation in all aspects, including Internet >> Governance. In other terms, it is a move to make it an overall umbrella, >> covering also the IGF (cf. the idea that has been floated to ultimately >> merge the two) and to somehow preempt the review role of the CSTD. However, >> it makes more sense to consider it as *the second leg of the >> implementation process* : the IGF dealing with policy issues and the WSIS >> Forum dealing more with actual projects and concrete actions : the various >> actors describing their programs, the difficulties encountered on the >> ground, and exchanging best practices that can be replicated. Discussion on >> location should not forget this *first fundamental alternative* : the >> WSIS Forum as the overall implementation review process (overseeing the IGF) >> or IGF and WSIS Forum as two complementary processes to catalyze progress. >> The first option could lead to internet governance issues becoming again the >> center political battle and the real development agenda being sidelined. The >> Plan of Action is more than Internet Governance and the concrete projects >> dimension deserves to be fully addressed. >> >> 2) Making its preparation more multi-stakeholder >> >> The WSIS Forum has adopted from the beginning an open door policy, which >> is a good thing. Furthermore, open consultations (however limited) have been >> introduced last year and this is a noteworthy progress, probably obtained >> because the IGF practice set a benchmark in that respect (a good example of >> the percolation of the IGF method). However, the Agenda, the format and the >> selection of panelist are still under the responsibility of the organizing >> Agencies (mostly led by ITU). The creation of *a Multi-stakeholder >> Advisory Group (MAG) for the WSIS Forum* would improve the preparatory >> process and guarantee equal representation of the different groups. The >> modalities of preparation of the meeting are probably as important as its >> location. >> >> 3) The role of the convenor >> >> Initially, the meeting (the cluster of action lines) was organized by the >> ITU alone with the meeting taking place in ITU premises. More recently, the >> concept is that this event is organized by the "lead facilitating Agencies" >> (ITU, Unesco, DESA and UNCTAD if I'm not mistaken), even if the ITU >> maintains a prominent role and most of the meetings still take place in the >> ITU building. It would probably make sense to push the logic a bit further >> and consider that, as they rotate in their chairmanship of the UNGIS, the >> *lead facilitators rotate accordingly in their responsibility to be the >> convenor/organizer of the WSIS Forum*. In that context, holding the WSIS >> Forum in New York should not be considered as a permanent move, but as >> corresponding to DESA being in the rotating chairmanship. Is it DESA's turn >> next year ? or Unesco ? And if it is Unesco, would they be ready to do so, >> now or later ? >> >> 4) Geographic rotation >> >> Discussions on the list and Wolfgang's comments in particular point to the >> potential benefits of holding the WSIS Forum in different parts of the >> world. The choice should not be limited to Europe and the United States >> because of the location of the lead agencies. In this respect, again, any >> holding of the WSIS Forum in New York in 2011 or later, should not be >> considered as a permanent move but at most as a first step towards *a >> geographical rotation facilitating outreach* to different regions of the >> world. >> >> 5) Ensuring broad participation (Visas and other logistical issues) >> >> A clear objective for the IGC is maximizing participation. The difficulty >> to obtain visas for the US (and costs) is probably the major objection >> regarding holding the WSIS Forum in New York. However, Anriette and Shaila >> have highlighted that significant events have been organized in New York >> with appropriate participation form actors around the world, provided some >> specific measure are taken (fellowships in particular). Likewise, Milton and >> Ginger highlight the capacity to attract organizations from the North and >> Latin America that have cost problems flying to Europe (this is the reason >> why geographical rotation is suggested). So, as Meryem rightly reminds us, >> the* visa and cost factors are not the only elements to take into account >> * : the political background is probably more important. In any case, *a >> special effort *in terms of visa obtention for all participants and >> financial support is a prerequisite if the WSIS Forum goes to New York this >> year or later. >> >> 6) Timing >> >> The WSIS Forum has traditionally been co-located with the IGF >> consultations and the CSTD meeting in May in Geneva, indeed facilitating >> participation and reducing costs. However, the whole compact period of two >> to three weeks is relatively difficult to manage in heavy agendas and >> schedules. Furthermore, if (as mentioned in point 1 above) the WSIS Forum is >> mostly about practical implementation rather than covering everything >> including Internet Governance, then the overlap in terms of participants is >> limited. *Decoupling the WSIS Forum in time from the IGF consultations >> and CSTD meetings* could even diversify the participation and help focus >> the WSIS Forum on the development agenda rather than a rehash of Internet >> Governance issues. Finally, leaving some time between the WSIS Forum and the >> CSTD meeting would allow the CSTD to receive a formal input from the WSIS >> Forum, something that is not possible when the two meetings are only days >> apart, as it is today. >> >> 7) Capacity to influence New York diplomats >> >> Provided the WSIS Forum is truly multi-stakeholder, open and participatory >> (including in its preparation), there could be some merit in *exposing >> New York diplomats to this particular methodology*. But it can be a >> two-edged sword, if it triggers a counter-reaction from more traditionally >> inclined governments that could negatively impact the discussions in the UN >> GA in 2011 on "improvements" to the IGF. >> On a side note, Lee indicated on the list that media presence in New York >> could be a way to get attention. But is media attention what is needed in >> 2011 or a stronger focus on concrete projects ? >> >> 8) The 2015 perspective >> >> There will be a general review of the WSIS implementation in 2015 (this is >> paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda). And there is a great likelihood that >> some countries will push in the ITU Plenipotentiary for a new Summit (a WSIS >> III) at that date. However, if the multistakeholder approach consecrated in >> Tunis is to be respected, an event in 2015 (whatever its name) *should ** >> not** be held along the same format as in Geneva or Tunis*. It must be a >> truly multi-stakeholder format, building upon the experience of both the IGF >> and the WSIS Forum. In such a context, the WSIS Forum and the IGF in the >> next five years would be *the two natural preparatory spaces* for the two >> dimensions of implementation : concrete projects and programs on the one >> hand and Internet Governance on the other. This eliminates the need for >> rigid PrepComs and could encourage the two spaces to progressively catalyze >> proposals (recommendations ?) to be endorsed by the 2015 event. >> >> I hope this helps clarify the challenges and the different dimensions of >> the debate and can facilitate the preparation of an IGC position. My three >> cents (because the post is long :-) >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint >> Exupéry >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Sep 7 12:24:35 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 11:54:35 -0430 Subject: [governance] Remote participation for IGF 2010: individuals and groups Message-ID: <4C866743.3060601@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 isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Sep 7 13:48:10 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 23:18:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] Remote participation for IGF 2010: individuals and groups In-Reply-To: <4C866743.3060601@gmail.com> References: <4C866743.3060601@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Ginger If it is not too late and too difficult for the IGF Secretariat to set it up, I would suggest a "Remote Participation Lobby" or better still a "Remote Home", for all remote participants to connect and stay connected to one another, irrespective of the sessions they attend. The idea of a Remote Participation Lobby is an online space for participants to temporarily log in, to come in and stay for a short time, to meet other remote participants in that space and interact. Remote Home would be a space where there would be some permanent profile info about remote participants, where participants can chat while logged in and leave messages for those who are offline. I am in the process of organizing a Remote Participation hub at Chennai where the participants are predominantly students, who would learn more about IGF if they connect to Youth participants from Diplo and other institutions. In general all participants physically present or otherwise can connect to one another for informal exchange of ideas (as in a chat window during an online meeting) in addition to the formal exchange during workshops. Such informal exchanges could be even more productive than formal exchanges during workshops (more business transactions take place in coffee shops than in Board rooms) Can there be such a space which could remain open during the IGF and if possible beyond? Sivasubramanian M 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 Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hello everybody > > If you won´t be in Vilnius for the IGF, it does not mean that you cannot > take part in discussions. Channels for remote participation will be > available to all those who want to follow the meetings and participate. > > Remote participants can connect individually or join an IGF hub, if one > will be organized in your home city. The complete list of IGF hubs is > available here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation > > It will be possible to follow the videocast/audiocast of all IGF sessions > and to send questions to the panelists. The official platform used for > remote participation will be Webex. The links to join each session (or each > “webex room”) will be available in IGF website prior to the meeting. > > We are also encouraging video questions from remote participants. If you > are interested to make a question, the best option would be to let us know > in advance, so we can test your connection/bandwidth capacity prior to the > session. > -- > > 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 vanda at uol.com.br Tue Sep 7 14:04:05 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 15:04:05 -0300 Subject: [governance] Remote participation for IGF 2010: individuals and groups In-Reply-To: <4C866743.3060601@gmail.com> References: <4C866743.3060601@gmail.com> Message-ID: <01e701cb4eb7$10803350$318099f0$@com.br> I have webex at my office, so I will follow by there. Thanks Ginger Kisses Vanda Scartezini From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 1:25 PM To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Subject: [governance] Remote participation for IGF 2010: individuals and groups Hello everybody If you won´t be in Vilnius for the IGF, it does not mean that you cannot take part in discussions. Channels for remote participation will be available to all those who want to follow the meetings and participate. Remote participants can connect individually or join an IGF hub, if one will be organized in your home city. The complete list of IGF hubs is available here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation It will be possible to follow the videocast/audiocast of all IGF sessions and to send questions to the panelists. The official platform used for remote participation will be Webex. The links to join each session (or each “webex room”) will be available in IGF website prior to the meeting. We are also encouraging video questions from remote participants. If you are interested to make a question, the best option would be to let us know in advance, so we can test your connection/bandwidth capacity prior to the session. -- 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 gpaque at gmail.com Tue Sep 7 14:32:04 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:02:04 -0430 Subject: [governance] Remote participation for IGF 2010: individuals and In-Reply-To: References: <4C866743.3060601@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4C868524.8000102@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 7 14:37:14 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 11:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the Empowered or In-Reply-To: References: <8E063AE47C2E453EA03A1F7C7BD3E816@userPC> Message-ID: <614886.62805.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> This would all be true Paul, if you believe man and woman are stupid.  If you believe that you somehow harbor the ultimate wisdom of what is honest and reliable. The only true protector of dishonesty and unreliableness is knowledge and actually using it. So with your notion it is circular and negative unless there is a benevolent omnipotent personage that controls information. No matter what: Marketing is education and education is marketing. Knowledge and wisdom come from discerning what something teaches us.  It does not come from deciding if it is true or reliable.  Data must be taken in context just like the words we use.  If you learn something from a free advertisement, one can only hope you have the intelligence to know that you did not just learn exactly what the ad said, but rather something about the product or service that is helpful to making informed decisions.  "juicy fruit" is neither it is a gum. But we learn from the ad and marketing that juicy and fruit are what the sellers want us to think about their product --- so do we buy it because it is a juicy piece of fruit -- no,,  but because we like the jingle and it was displayed well -- we know that. Please get off the notion of protecting us from ourselves. ________________________________ From: Paul Lehto To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Cc: Rui Correia Sent: Fri, September 3, 2010 9:25:58 AM Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the Empowered or "Open data" is a public good, but unless it is "open and honest" data, the public is in effect being manipulated rather than manipulating honest data.  I'm inclined to support open data but with a major caveat. Hard won data and knowledge, such as professional knowledge, IP, etc., tends to be hoarded on the stated grounds of recovering investment & profiting from innovation. If it is initially protected data/knowledge and then liberated to be open, it is more likely reliable or honest data or knowledge.  When it is provided for free in the first place, since most data has at least a nominal cost and some of the best data is hard to come by, it raises the question of whether open data is open and honest data. Advertising is always free to us, and the advertising industry stands as a trillion dollar proof of the eagerness to provide us with free, open data in order to manipulate us in the direction of the data provider's will. Paul Lehto, J.D. On 9/3/10, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Sorry Rui, the context is the on-going and extremely interesting discussion > around "open data" (follow the links below... > > Several of those involved in this list are also involved in issues around > "open data/knowledge" although I'm not really sure there is a direct > connection to Internet Governance. > > "The open data  movement in the > area of access to public (and other) information is a relatively new but > very significant, and potentially powerful, emerging force.  It has now been > widely endorsed by among others > html> Tim Berners-Lee the Father of the Internet. The overall intention is > to make local, regional and national data (and particularly publicly > acquired data) available in a form that allows for direct manipulation using > software tools as for example, for the purposes of cross-tabulation, > visualization, mapping and so on." > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 7:17 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the Empowered > or > > > Mike > > What exactly do you mean by data and access to data? > > Rui > > > On 3 September 2010 14:46, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > Perhaps a wee bit off topic, but there may be an interest. > > Mike > > > Efforts to extend access to "data" will perhaps inevitably create a "data > divide" parallel to the oft-discussed "digital divide" between those who > have access to data which could have significance in their daily lives and > those who don't. Associated with this will one can assume, be many of the > same background conditions which have been identified as likely reasons for > the digital divide-that is differences in income, education, literacy and so > on.  However, just as with the "digital divide", these divisions don't > simply stop or be resolved with the provision of digital (or data) "access". > What is necessary as well, is that those for whom access is being provided > are in a position to actually make use of the now available access (to the > Internet or to data) in ways that are meaningful and beneficial for them. > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/open-data-empowering-the-empowered- > -%0Aor-effective-data-use-for-everyone/> > or-effective-data-use-for-everyone/ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > > _________________________ > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > àáâãçéêíóôõúç > > > > -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 7 14:42:19 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 00:12:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Remote participation for IGF 2010: individuals and groups In-Reply-To: <4C868524.8000102@paque.net> References: <4C866743.3060601@gmail.com> <4C868524.8000102@paque.net> Message-ID: Skype is good for a small group, not for a thousand participants to connect to one another. What we need is a sub-portel with a profile page / blog for every participant + multiple chat rooms. Sivasubramanian M http://www.isocmadras.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi Shiva and all those interested in Remote Participation. > > Shiva, this is a great idea, and the solution we have used is to open Skype > conversations. The whole remote participation group is probably too diverse > and too large to work this way, but smaller groups open conversations. For > example, I suggest that the Chennai group open their own Skype conversation > so they can communicate between themselves, without the chat being seen on > the IGF chat window. > > Remote moderators will probably be in another conversation, dealing with > support issues that come up during the IGF. > > Other groups do the same, according to interests, to make the conversations > easier to follow. > > Does anyone else have a solution/technique they use or suggest to implement > this communication? > > Thanks, best, gp > > On 9/7/2010 1:18 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > Dear Ginger > > If it is not too late and too difficult for the IGF Secretariat to set it > up, I would suggest a "Remote Participation Lobby" or better still a "Remote > Home", for all remote participants to connect and stay connected to one > another, irrespective of the sessions they attend. > > The idea of a Remote Participation Lobby is an online space for > participants to temporarily log in, to come in and stay for a short time, to > meet other remote participants in that space and interact. > > Remote Home would be a space where there would be some permanent profile > info about remote participants, where participants can chat while logged in > and leave messages for those who are offline. > > I am in the process of organizing a Remote Participation hub at Chennai > where the participants are predominantly students, who would learn more > about IGF if they connect to Youth participants from Diplo and other > institutions. In general all participants physically present or > otherwise can connect to one another for informal exchange of ideas (as in a > chat window during an online meeting) in addition to the formal exchange > during workshops. Such informal exchanges could be even more productive than > formal exchanges during workshops (more business transactions take place in > coffee shops than in Board rooms) > > Can there be such a space which could remain open during the IGF and if > possible beyond? > > Sivasubramanian M > > 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 Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Hello everybody >> >> If you won´t be in Vilnius for the IGF, it does not mean that you cannot >> take part in discussions. Channels for remote participation will be >> available to all those who want to follow the meetings and participate. >> >> Remote participants can connect individually or join an IGF hub, if one >> will be organized in your home city. The complete list of IGF hubs is >> available here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation >> >> It will be possible to follow the videocast/audiocast of all IGF sessions >> and to send questions to the panelists. The official platform used for >> remote participation will be Webex. The links to join each session (or each >> “webex room”) will be available in IGF website prior to the meeting. >> >> We are also encouraging video questions from remote participants. If you >> are interested to make a question, the best option would be to let us know >> in advance, so we can test your connection/bandwidth capacity prior to the >> session. >> -- >> >> 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 7 14:54:55 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 11:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on IGF In-Reply-To: <4C849820.4010209@itforchange.net> References: <4C8482F1.3030102@itforchange.net> <1283756508.1756.8.camel@anriette-laptop> <4C849820.4010209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <779074.75459.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Thank you folks for putting this out there, it gives me happy goosebumps. 1st, the absence: No person being given the credit, no voting or process or democracy. And the absolute good of hardworking people advocating positions to at least get them heard and on the table, through logic, passion and intelligence. To heck with Politicians, Warriors, Sports stars and rescue workers --- These CS guys and gals are my heroes. Someday I dream that posters of these folks will fill the walls of childrens rooms. Eric   ________________________________ From: parminder To: anriette at apc.org Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Mon, September 6, 2010 12:28:32 AM Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on IGF On Monday 06 September 2010 12:31 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: Thanks for posting this Parminder... also worth noting that the idea of this working group came from civil society. Another instance where a civil society proposal (made at the CSTD this year) helped governments find a practical way forward. Thanks, Anriette, for pointing to this important fact. In fact, the May 2009 session of CSTD witnessed some very important advocacy successes of civil society, which I think may not have been noticed and discussed enough. All the three most important elements of the CSTD resolution, now adopted by the ECOSOC, either came first from civil society (CS), or at the very least CS was one of the early active sponsors of these ideas. Not only that, CS was involved in some hectic back room lobbying to ensure that these important steps forward for global IG found their way into the draft, and then that they got support from key gov reps on the CSTD. These important issues or steps forward are: 1) An open consultation on enhanced cooperation or EC (to be held later this year) 2) A CSTD working group on IGF 3) A clear statement to the effect that EC and IGF are two *distinct* if complementary processes (which should put to rest efforts to present activities at the IGF as covering the meaning and intent of EC, something which has been attempted rather strongly in the last few years) Parminder But this makes it very important for us to be there and make our voices heard, and to insist that civil society is well-represented on this working group. Anriette On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 11:28 +0530, parminder wrote: >Hi All Some of you may remember that CSTD had adopted a resolution for a CSTD >WG on IGF improvements, which has now been adopted by the ECOSOC. >Interestingly, there will be some activity regarding this at the Vilnius IGF. >The following is an excerpt from a message circulated on the MAG list. >CSTD Vice-Chair and MAG Member Frederic Riehl will hold lunchtime >consultations on the CSTD Working Group on the IGF on 16 September. I >presume he will send out additional information. The consultations will >take place in the main meeting hall, starting at 1330. Good opportunity >to make ourselves heard. Parminder plain text document attachment >(message-footer.txt) >____________________________________________________________ You received this >message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be >removed from the list, send any message to: >governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, >see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 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 Tue Sep 7 15:02:45 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:32:45 -0430 Subject: [governance] Remote participation for IGF 2010: individuals and In-Reply-To: References: <4C866743.3060601@gmail.com> <4C868524.8000102@paque.net> Message-ID: <4C868C55.80909@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 isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Sep 7 15:07:45 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 00:37:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Remote participation for IGF 2010: individuals and groups In-Reply-To: <4C868C55.80909@gmail.com> References: <4C866743.3060601@gmail.com> <4C868524.8000102@paque.net> <4C868C55.80909@gmail.com> Message-ID: A thousand participants, yes, but not all of them online at the same time, and even if they are, the idea is to have multiple rooms. I will call for a technical opinion and come back to you on how we could do this. Sivasubramanian M On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Shiva, I do not see how we can have a chat for a thousand participants--I > think it would be chaos. I do not know of a platform that could handle this, > either. Do you have a suggestion? If you or anyone else would like to work > on this possibility, please contact me OFFLIST. > Thanks! Best, gp > > 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. > > On 9/7/2010 2:12 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > Skype is good for a small group, not for a thousand participants to connect > to one another. What we need is a sub-portel with a profile page / blog for > every participant + multiple chat rooms. > > > Sivasubramanian M > http://www.isocmadras.com > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > > > > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Hi Shiva and all those interested in Remote Participation. >> >> Shiva, this is a great idea, and the solution we have used is to open >> Skype conversations. The whole remote participation group is probably too >> diverse and too large to work this way, but smaller groups open >> conversations. For example, I suggest that the Chennai group open their own >> Skype conversation so they can communicate between themselves, without the >> chat being seen on the IGF chat window. >> >> Remote moderators will probably be in another conversation, dealing with >> support issues that come up during the IGF. >> >> Other groups do the same, according to interests, to make the >> conversations easier to follow. >> >> Does anyone else have a solution/technique they use or suggest to >> implement this communication? >> >> Thanks, best, gp >> >> On 9/7/2010 1:18 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >> >> Dear Ginger >> >> If it is not too late and too difficult for the IGF Secretariat to set >> it up, I would suggest a "Remote Participation Lobby" or better still a >> "Remote Home", for all remote participants to connect and stay connected to >> one another, irrespective of the sessions they attend. >> >> The idea of a Remote Participation Lobby is an online space for >> participants to temporarily log in, to come in and stay for a short time, to >> meet other remote participants in that space and interact. >> >> Remote Home would be a space where there would be some permanent profile >> info about remote participants, where participants can chat while logged in >> and leave messages for those who are offline. >> >> I am in the process of organizing a Remote Participation hub at Chennai >> where the participants are predominantly students, who would learn more >> about IGF if they connect to Youth participants from Diplo and other >> institutions. In general all participants physically present or >> otherwise can connect to one another for informal exchange of ideas (as in a >> chat window during an online meeting) in addition to the formal exchange >> during workshops. Such informal exchanges could be even more productive than >> formal exchanges during workshops (more business transactions take place in >> coffee shops than in Board rooms) >> >> Can there be such a space which could remain open during the IGF and if >> possible beyond? >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> 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 Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> Hello everybody >>> >>> If you won´t be in Vilnius for the IGF, it does not mean that you cannot >>> take part in discussions. Channels for remote participation will be >>> available to all those who want to follow the meetings and participate. >>> >>> Remote participants can connect individually or join an IGF hub, if one >>> will be organized in your home city. The complete list of IGF hubs is >>> available here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation >>> >>> It will be possible to follow the videocast/audiocast of all IGF sessions >>> and to send questions to the panelists. The official platform used for >>> remote participation will be Webex. The links to join each session (or each >>> “webex room”) will be available in IGF website prior to the meeting. >>> >>> We are also encouraging video questions from remote participants. If you >>> are interested to make a question, the best option would be to let us know >>> in advance, so we can test your connection/bandwidth capacity prior to the >>> session. >>> -- >>> >>> 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Sep 7 15:11:28 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 00:41:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Remote participation for IGF 2010: individuals and In-Reply-To: <4C868C55.80909@gmail.com> References: <4C866743.3060601@gmail.com> <4C868524.8000102@paque.net> <4C868C55.80909@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Ginger thousand participants, yes, but not all of them online at the same time, and even if they are, the idea is to have multiple rooms. I will call for a technical opinion and come back to you on how we could do this. Sivasubramanian M On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Shiva, I do not see how we can have a chat for a thousand participants--I > think it would be chaos. I do not know of a platform that could handle this, > either. Do you have a suggestion? If you or anyone else would like to work > on this possibility, please contact me OFFLIST. > Thanks! Best, gp > > 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. > > On 9/7/2010 2:12 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > Skype is good for a small group, not for a thousand participants to connect > to one another. What we need is a sub-portel with a profile page / blog for > every participant + multiple chat rooms. > > > Sivasubramanian M > > http://www.isocmadras.com > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > > > > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Hi Shiva and all those interested in Remote Participation. >> >> Shiva, this is a great idea, and the solution we have used is to open >> Skype conversations. The whole remote participation group is probably too >> diverse and too large to work this way, but smaller groups open >> conversations. For example, I suggest that the Chennai group open their own >> Skype conversation so they can communicate between themselves, without the >> chat being seen on the IGF chat window. >> >> Remote moderators will probably be in another conversation, dealing with >> support issues that come up during the IGF. >> >> Other groups do the same, according to interests, to make the >> conversations easier to follow. >> >> Does anyone else have a solution/technique they use or suggest to >> implement this communication? >> >> Thanks, best, gp >> >> On 9/7/2010 1:18 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >> >> Dear Ginger >> >> If it is not too late and too difficult for the IGF Secretariat to set >> it up, I would suggest a "Remote Participation Lobby" or better still a >> "Remote Home", for all remote participants to connect and stay connected to >> one another, irrespective of the sessions they attend. >> >> The idea of a Remote Participation Lobby is an online space for >> participants to temporarily log in, to come in and stay for a short time, to >> meet other remote participants in that space and interact. >> >> Remote Home would be a space where there would be some permanent profile >> info about remote participants, where participants can chat while logged in >> and leave messages for those who are offline. >> >> I am in the process of organizing a Remote Participation hub at Chennai >> where the participants are predominantly students, who would learn more >> about IGF if they connect to Youth participants from Diplo and other >> institutions. In general all participants physically present or >> otherwise can connect to one another for informal exchange of ideas (as in a >> chat window during an online meeting) in addition to the formal exchange >> during workshops. Such informal exchanges could be even more productive than >> formal exchanges during workshops (more business transactions take place in >> coffee shops than in Board rooms) >> >> Can there be such a space which could remain open during the IGF and if >> possible beyond? >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> 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 Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> Hello everybody >>> >>> If you won´t be in Vilnius for the IGF, it does not mean that you cannot >>> take part in discussions. Channels for remote participation will be >>> available to all those who want to follow the meetings and participate. >>> >>> Remote participants can connect individually or join an IGF hub, if one >>> will be organized in your home city. The complete list of IGF hubs is >>> available here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation >>> >>> It will be possible to follow the videocast/audiocast of all IGF sessions >>> and to send questions to the panelists. The official platform used for >>> remote participation will be Webex. The links to join each session (or each >>> “webex room”) will be available in IGF website prior to the meeting. >>> >>> We are also encouraging video questions from remote participants. If you >>> are interested to make a question, the best option would be to let us know >>> in advance, so we can test your connection/bandwidth capacity prior to the >>> session. >>> -- >>> >>> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 7 15:28:36 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 16:28:36 -0300 Subject: [governance] Remote participation for IGF 2010: individuals and groups In-Reply-To: References: <4C866743.3060601@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Sivasubramanian, Remote participation is incremental and has improved step-by-step over the years. I believe we have come a long way and the number of hubs registered (more than 30) shows that there is interest and trust. In order to move on the direction you suggested (which I believe would be awesome) we need the involvement of the community. What we call today the remote participation working group are 5 people who multitask a lot :) I believe there are already some interesting initiatives on this direction. We just need to connect the dots and avoid duplicated efforts. I would like to invite to take part on this conversation Jeremy Malcom, who has developed a platform he previously mentioned on the list, and Tim Davies, who is working on an aggregator of all the material produced during the IGF (from Webex chats, to blog posts and twitter) Together, I am sure that much can be done! Best wishes, Marilia On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Dear Ginger > > If it is not too late and too difficult for the IGF Secretariat to set it > up, I would suggest a "Remote Participation Lobby" or better still a "Remote > Home", for all remote participants to connect and stay connected to one > another, irrespective of the sessions they attend. > > The idea of a Remote Participation Lobby is an online space for > participants to temporarily log in, to come in and stay for a short time, to > meet other remote participants in that space and interact. > > Remote Home would be a space where there would be some permanent profile > info about remote participants, where participants can chat while logged in > and leave messages for those who are offline. > > I am in the process of organizing a Remote Participation hub at Chennai > where the participants are predominantly students, who would learn more > about IGF if they connect to Youth participants from Diplo and other > institutions. In general all participants physically present or > otherwise can connect to one another for informal exchange of ideas (as in a > chat window during an online meeting) in addition to the formal exchange > during workshops. Such informal exchanges could be even more productive than > formal exchanges during workshops (more business transactions take place in > coffee shops than in Board rooms) > > Can there be such a space which could remain open during the IGF and if > possible beyond? > > Sivasubramanian M > > 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 Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Hello everybody >> >> If you won´t be in Vilnius for the IGF, it does not mean that you cannot >> take part in discussions. Channels for remote participation will be >> available to all those who want to follow the meetings and participate. >> >> Remote participants can connect individually or join an IGF hub, if one >> will be organized in your home city. The complete list of IGF hubs is >> available here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation >> >> It will be possible to follow the videocast/audiocast of all IGF sessions >> and to send questions to the panelists. The official platform used for >> remote participation will be Webex. The links to join each session (or each >> “webex room”) will be available in IGF website prior to the meeting. >> >> We are also encouraging video questions from remote participants. If you >> are interested to make a question, the best option would be to let us know >> in advance, so we can test your connection/bandwidth capacity prior to the >> session. >> -- >> >> 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 > -- 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 bnkuerbi at syr.edu Tue Sep 7 15:23:32 2010 From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 15:23:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fifth GigaNet Annual Symposium - Sep 13, 2010 in Vilnius, Lithuania Message-ID: FYI, apologies for cross-posting. RE: remote participation, please continue to check the online program < http://giga-net.org/page/2010-annual-symposium> for more information. We are confirming availability of the platform being used for IGF. Thanks, Brenden == The Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) is a scholarly community which aims: (i) to promote the development of Internet Governance as a recognized interdisciplinary field of study and (ii) to facilitate the informed dialogue on policy and issues in a multistakeholder approach. To fulfill its goals, GigaNet has organized an annual research symposium since 2006. Held in conjunction with the Internet Governance Forum, it is an opportunity to showcase current research on Internet Governance from around the world and provides a venue for scholars to discuss and debate these crucial issues. Prior successful symposia in Greece (2006), Brazil (2007), India (2008) and Egypt (2009) lead us to the Fifth GigaNet Symposium to be held in Vilnius, Lithuania, on September 13th, 2010 - one day before the IGF official opening, at LITEXPO. This year's Symposium is graciously sponsored in part by the MIT Press , with facilities provided by the IGF Secretariat. Registration is free of charge. If you are planning to attend or remotely participate, please register at http://tinyurl.com/2010giganetsymposium. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact: giganetsymposium2010 at easychair.org FIFTH GIGANET ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM LITEXPO (Hall 5, Room 3), Vilnius, Lithuania September 13, 2010 PROGRAM [PDF ] *(LAST UPDATE: 6 SEPTEMBER 2010)* *9:00-9:15 Opening & Welcome* *9:15-10:30 PANEL 1: Internet governance theory and issue* Moderator: William Drake, Centre for International Governance of the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva - Peng Hwa Ang and Natalie Pang, *Going Beyond Talk: Can International Internet Governance Work?* - Everton Lucero, *Global Governance of Critical Internet Resources: A Perspective from the South* - Jean-Marie Chenou, *Multistakeholderism or elitism? The creation of a transnational field of Internet governance* *10:30-11:00 Poster Session and Coffee Break* *(sponsored by MIT Press)* *11:00-12:15 PANEL 2: State power and Internet governance* Moderator: Rolf Weber, European Law Institute and the Center for Information and Communication Law at the University of Zurich - Joanna Kulesza, *State responsibility for acts of cyber-terrorism* - Jeremy Shtern, *Models of Global Internet Governance and the Projection of State Power: The Case of Facebook and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada* - Lorena Jaume-Palasi and Ben Wagner, *Nosy preferences of Google and China: Modeling an internet governance conflict using Amartya Sen’s liberal paradox* *12:15-12:45 Book Release Event* Introduction given by William Drake, editor of the MIT Press series on “The Information Revolution and Global Politics”, followed by remarks from Milton Mueller, author of the newly released book, “Networks and States: the Global Politics of Internet Governance” . *12:45-13:30 Lunch Break* *13:30-14:45 PANEL 3: Interaction of technology, operations and governance* Moderator: Meryem Marzouki, LIP6/PolyTIC – CNRS - Brenden Kuerbis, *Securing Internet routing: Influence and control of critical Internet resources through social networks and delegation* - Dmitry Epstein, Qiu-Hong Wang, Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Milton Mueller, *What’s in the name? A behavioral study of the use of the URLs in China and the US* - Laura DeNardis, *The Privatization Of Internet Governance* *14:45-15:45 PANEL 4: IGF practice, multistakeholderism and emerging issues* - Nanette Levinson, *Evaluating and Analyzing Collaboration In Cross-cultural and Cross-sectoral Perspective: Indicators from The Internet Governance Forum* - Ivar Alberto Hartmann, *Universal Access policies and Internet Access as a Fundamental Right: The Constitutional Law Perspective informed by the Brazilian Case* *15:45-16:00 Closing* *16:00-16:30 Poster Session and Coffee Break* *(sponsored by MIT Press)* *16:30-17:30 GigaNet Business Meeting* (open to members and potential applicants) Convener: GigaNet Chair, Milton Mueller *Poster session:* - Charlotte Bogusz, *Openness and Privacy v/ Security : The example of filtering measures* - Charlotte Bogusz, *The promotion of the general interest through ICTs : The French and Senegalese examples* - Daniel Oppermann, *Analysing cybercrime from a multistakeholder perspective* - Luiz Costa, *The Internet and the Constitutional restrictions on foreign participation in Brazilian Media* - Luiz Costa, *A case study on the Brazilian E-Commerce Forum* - Mona Badran, *Is internet changing the social life of Egyptian college students and affecting* *their privacy?* - Rolf H. Weber, *Policies for Governing Critical Internet Resources* - Shawn Gunnarson, *Securing ICANN's Accountability* - Sofiane Bouhdiba, *Internet governance and Education: the Tunisian Virtual University in the context of the Tunis agenda* *Many thanks to the 2010 Program Committee members:* - Slavka Antonova, University of North Dakota, USA - Lamees El Baghdady, Modern Sciences and Art University, Egypt - Roy Balleste, St. Thomas University, USA - Olga Cavalli, South SSIG, Argentina - Dmitry Epstein, Cornell University, USA - Marianne Franklin, University of London, UK - Raquel Gatto - PC Chair, PUC-SP, Brazil - Konstantinos Komaitis - Membership Chair, University of Strathclyde, UK - Brenden Kuerbis - Communications Chair, Syracuse University, USA - Nanette Levinson, American University, USA - Milton Mueller - GigaNet Chair, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Sep 7 15:42:27 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 15:42:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the Empowered or In-Reply-To: <614886.62805.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <8E063AE47C2E453EA03A1F7C7BD3E816@userPC> <614886.62805.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/7/10, Eric Dierker wrote: > No matter what: Marketing is education and education is marketing. Knowledge > and > wisdom come from discerning what something teaches us. It does not come > from > deciding if it is true or reliable. Data must be taken in context just like > the > words we use. If you learn something from a free advertisement, one can > only > hope you have the intelligence to know that you did not just learn exactly > what > the ad said, but rather something about the product or service that is > helpful > to making informed decisions. "juicy fruit" is neither it is a gum. But we > learn from the ad and marketing that juicy and fruit are what the sellers > want > us to think about their product --- so do we buy it because it is a juicy > piece > of fruit -- no,, but because we like the jingle and it was displayed well > -- we > know that. > > Please get off the notion of protecting us from ourselves. OK Eric, you are showing that you are smart enough to distinguish an advertising message from the truth of the matter. This is the distinction that I'm pointing to, and you yourself demonstrate an application of it. That being said, there are much more subtle and difficult applications of the principle when the data is not in the form of an obvious jingle, but is, for example, economic data provided by a government as supposedly objective data, or corporate economic forecasts that can emanate from cooked books. I stipulate that you are also aware of risks there, but this is a topic for legitimate public education, and you were not born knowing these things. Therefore I do not agree that people are 'stupid' if they need to either be taught these things or reminded of them. Nor is it fair to say this is "protecting us from ourselves", instead it is enabling each individual to think for themselves and to question sources of data and/or authority, because "open" data does not necessarily mean accurate and truthful data, nor does open data mean that our hard won knowledge is something we can actually do something about, because we may lack realistic remedies. Effectiveness comes in three parts: 1. Transparency (gaining information, as in a clean, transparent windshield allowing us to see) 2 . Knowledge (good analysis of the data obtained via some form of transparency - a subject for ongoing education) 3. Remedies (ability to apply knowledge in an effective way via the courts or publicity or other means in order to alter the external environment in a beneficial way) Paul Lehto, J.D. > ________________________________ > From: Paul Lehto > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > Cc: Rui Correia > Sent: Fri, September 3, 2010 9:25:58 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the Empowered > or > > "Open data" is a public good, but unless it is "open and honest" data, > the public is in effect being manipulated rather than manipulating > honest data. I'm inclined to support open data but with a major > caveat. > > Hard won data and knowledge, such as professional knowledge, IP, etc., > tends to be hoarded on the stated grounds of recovering investment & > profiting from innovation. If it is initially protected data/knowledge > and then liberated to be open, it is more likely reliable or honest > data or knowledge. When it is provided for free in the first place, > since most data has at least a nominal cost and some of the best data > is hard to come by, it raises the question of whether open data is > open and honest data. > > Advertising is always free to us, and the advertising industry stands > as a trillion dollar proof of the eagerness to provide us with free, > open data in order to manipulate us in the direction of the data > provider's will. > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > > On 9/3/10, Michael Gurstein wrote: >> Sorry Rui, the context is the on-going and extremely interesting >> discussion >> around "open data" (follow the links below... >> >> Several of those involved in this list are also involved in issues around >> "open data/knowledge" although I'm not really sure there is a direct >> connection to Internet Governance. >> >> "The open data movement in the >> area of access to public (and other) information is a relatively new but >> very significant, and potentially powerful, emerging force. It has now >> been >> widely endorsed by among others >> > html> Tim Berners-Lee the Father of the Internet. The overall intention is >> to make local, regional and national data (and particularly publicly >> acquired data) available in a form that allows for direct manipulation >> using >> software tools as for example, for the purposes of cross-tabulation, >> visualization, mapping and so on." >> >> Mike >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 7:17 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein >> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the >> Empowered >> or >> >> >> Mike >> >> What exactly do you mean by data and access to data? >> >> Rui >> >> >> On 3 September 2010 14:46, Michael Gurstein wrote: >> >> >> Perhaps a wee bit off topic, but there may be an interest. >> >> Mike >> >> >> Efforts to extend access to "data" will perhaps inevitably create a "data >> divide" parallel to the oft-discussed "digital divide" between those who >> have access to data which could have significance in their daily lives and >> those who don't. Associated with this will one can assume, be many of the >> same background conditions which have been identified as likely reasons >> for >> the digital divide-that is differences in income, education, literacy and >> so >> on. However, just as with the "digital divide", these divisions don't >> simply stop or be resolved with the provision of digital (or data) >> "access". >> What is necessary as well, is that those for whom access is being provided >> are in a position to actually make use of the now available access (to the >> Internet or to data) in ways that are meaningful and beneficial for them. >> >> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/open-data-empowering-the-empowered- >> > -%0Aor-effective-data-use-for-everyone/> >> or-effective-data-use-for-everyone/ >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> _________________________ >> >> Rui Correia >> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >> Angola Liaison Consultant >> 2 Cutten St >> Horison >> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >> South Africa >> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >> _______________ >> àáâãçéêíóôõúç >> >> >> >> > > > -- > 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 -- 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Sep 7 16:29:27 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 01:59:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Remote participation for IGF 2010: individuals and groups In-Reply-To: References: <4C866743.3060601@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Marilla Maciel, I am sure there would be ample community participation in the task of building up the required collaborative interface (for the remote participants to connect to other remote participants as also to panelists and physical participants) Yes, some beginnings have already been made, we will have to expand the work done already. Jeremy and Tim Davies will probably come up with ways of facilitating networking and online interaction among participants; I also hope that we will get some creative suggestions from the participants of this list. Perhaps we can call this "The Internet Governance Network" ??? Sivasubramanian M. On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear Sivasubramanian, > > Remote participation is incremental and has improved step-by-step over the > years. I believe we have come a long way and the number of hubs registered > (more than 30) shows that there is interest and trust. > > In order to move on the direction you suggested (which I believe would be > awesome) we need the involvement of the community. What we call today the > remote participation working group are 5 people who multitask a lot :) > > I believe there are already some interesting initiatives on this direction. > We just need to connect the dots and avoid duplicated efforts. I would like > to invite to take part on this conversation Jeremy Malcom, who has developed > a platform he previously mentioned on the list, and Tim Davies, who is > working on an aggregator of all the material produced during the IGF (from > Webex chats, to blog posts and twitter) > > Together, I am sure that much can be done! > > Best wishes, > > Marilia > > > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > >> Dear Ginger >> >> If it is not too late and too difficult for the IGF Secretariat to set it >> up, I would suggest a "Remote Participation Lobby" or better still a "Remote >> Home", for all remote participants to connect and stay connected to one >> another, irrespective of the sessions they attend. >> >> The idea of a Remote Participation Lobby is an online space for >> participants to temporarily log in, to come in and stay for a short time, to >> meet other remote participants in that space and interact. >> >> Remote Home would be a space where there would be some permanent profile >> info about remote participants, where participants can chat while logged in >> and leave messages for those who are offline. >> >> I am in the process of organizing a Remote Participation hub at Chennai >> where the participants are predominantly students, who would learn more >> about IGF if they connect to Youth participants from Diplo and other >> institutions. In general all participants physically present or >> otherwise can connect to one another for informal exchange of ideas (as in a >> chat window during an online meeting) in addition to the formal exchange >> during workshops. Such informal exchanges could be even more productive than >> formal exchanges during workshops (more business transactions take place in >> coffee shops than in Board rooms) >> >> Can there be such a space which could remain open during the IGF and if >> possible beyond? >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> 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 Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> Hello everybody >>> >>> If you won´t be in Vilnius for the IGF, it does not mean that you cannot >>> take part in discussions. Channels for remote participation will be >>> available to all those who want to follow the meetings and participate. >>> >>> Remote participants can connect individually or join an IGF hub, if one >>> will be organized in your home city. The complete list of IGF hubs is >>> available here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation >>> >>> It will be possible to follow the videocast/audiocast of all IGF sessions >>> and to send questions to the panelists. The official platform used for >>> remote participation will be Webex. The links to join each session (or each >>> “webex room”) will be available in IGF website prior to the meeting. >>> >>> We are also encouraging video questions from remote participants. If you >>> are interested to make a question, the best option would be to let us know >>> in advance, so we can test your connection/bandwidth capacity prior to the >>> session. >>> -- >>> >>> 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 >> > > > > -- > 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 ahmed.swapan at gmail.com Tue Sep 7 16:49:46 2010 From: ahmed.swapan at gmail.com (Ahmed Swapan Mahmud) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 03:49:46 +0700 Subject: [governance] Under the shadow of surveillance gadgets Message-ID: FYI The Independent published my small piece of write up pasted below. Happy reading! Regards, Ahmed ............... Under the shadow of surveillance gadgets FRIDAY, 03 SEPTEMBER 2010 AUTHOR / SOURCE : AHMED SWAPAN MAHMUD HTTP://WWW.THEINDEPENDENTBD.COM/PAPER-EDITION/OTHERS/IT/7882-UNDER-THE-SHADOW-OF-SURVEILLANCE-GADGETS.HTML For evolving new technologies protection of personal information in society becoming important. To maintain human rights and principles, it is indispensable to understand social dynamics that are gradually changing not only because of the emerging of information technologies, but also for imposing globalisation and monopolisation of information market. The social needs and demands are diverging, and we are permitting this without considering the implications, so we need to rearticulate the rules of society based on technologies. However, a fundamental question comes whether society has specific acts or policies regarding protection of privacy, not only in individual's case but in case of all spheres of society. Also we must ask whether society has any supervisory authority to protect rights of its citizenry. How personal information can be protected by the State is an important element to consider since State has the obligation and responsibilities to comply with the Constitutional provisions and human rights. Security is another important phenomenon that has global consequences, especially after the terrorist attacks on US in 2001. Within the premise of capitalist and imperialist globalisation, security becomes global concern while governments and corporations are investing millions of dollars to protect society. On the other hand, the urges for protection of society, ironically violating the norms and values of human rights due to lack of policy initiatives safeguarding public interest of personal information. In recent years, not only on a global scale, also in the developing countries including Bangladesh, a number of steps have been taken neglecting security of personal information and privacy. For example, mobile phone SIM card re-registration in Bangladesh was enforced while a mobile phone user was compelled to re-register providing every information in a prescribed form provided by BTRC via mobile phone operators. Do we know why we put every detail to use the mobile phone or how we can be ensured that the information or data given to the format for re-registration will not be leaked or used for other purposes? Who will use it and for what purposes information was asked by the companies? If an individual didn't agree to give personal information, his or her line was cut off. So the decision was come from the top policy level while the other party was forced to give information. The other example can be Voter ID Card. Bangladesh Election Commission (EC) has introduced Voter ID undertaking a project titled Bangladesh Voter Registration Project that was launched to prepare biometric-based voter lists and issue national ID cards preparing for the last national election. The ID registration took fingerprints of the commoners and also every detail without giving any guarantee of protection of data to an individual. Private information of an individual or persons can be disclosed in response to emergency. But invading privacy with malicious intention certainly undermines the democratic values and moral of society. Clients' personal information can also be leaked through private companies while they do any survey or more dangerously by the mobile phone companies which forced clients to give them personal information during re-registration of the mobile phone SIM card. A client who doesn't meet up the criteria given by the mobile phone company, has faced the cut off from using the connection anymore. This phenomenon understandably comes from the then military backed government while phone companies are instructed to maintain the database. There are complaints from the citizens that personal information particularly mobile phone numbers they gave during loading money, is given to or abused by the service providers and whom they provided, which is often a serious offence that makes lot of hazards even in personal life. It poses serious problems for the users of cell-phones particularly girls and women are the worst sufferers. Since service providers are allowed by the dealers or by the companies while state has no control over them, to load money to SIM cards, it often goes against the norms of values to keep personal information secret honouring the individual's privacy. The private entities are allowed by the government while the numbers of victims in society is increasing. Ahmed Swapan Mahmud is Executive Director of VOICE. -- Ahmed Swapan Mahmud Executive Director, VOICE House 67, Block-Ka Pisciculture Housing Society Shyamoli, Dhaka 1207 Bangladesh Tel : +88-02-8158688 Cell-phone : +88-01711-881919 Alternate e-mail : exchange.voice at gmail.com Website : www.voicebd.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 ocl at gih.com Tue Sep 7 18:04:53 2010 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:04:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Nominating Committee selection results Message-ID: <4C86B705.80208@gih.com> Just hot off the press: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-07sep10-en.htm O. -- 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Sep 7 19:30:35 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 07:30:35 +0800 Subject: [governance] Remote participation for IGF 2010: individuals and In-Reply-To: <4C868524.8000102@paque.net> References: <4C866743.3060601@gmail.com> <4C868524.8000102@paque.net> Message-ID: On 08-Sep-2010, at 2:32 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Does anyone else have a solution/technique they use or suggest to > implement this communication? Yes, IRC (Internet Relay Chat), the oldest but still most widely-used Internet chat protocol, and - unlike Skype - an open, non-proprietary standard. The official IGF IRC channel is #igf on the Freenode network (ie. chat.freenode.net ). Language-specific channels #igf-fr, #igf-es etc. also exist, and anyone can request the administrator (me) to set up channels with special features such as moderation. Free IRC clients are available for every computing platform (just search Google), and a Web based interface is also available at http://igf-online.net/chat.php . This facility has been available since 2007, but there are usually only a small group of us online. This year I'd like to see many more, so please join in! You'll find it a much more pleasant alternative to Skype. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Tue Sep 7 19:39:05 2010 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (catherine) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 19:39:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Remote participation for IGF 2010: individuals and In-Reply-To: References: <4C866743.3060601@gmail.com> <4C868524.8000102@paque.net> Message-ID: On Tue, September 7, 2010 7:30 pm, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 08-Sep-2010, at 2:32 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Does anyone else have a solution/technique they use or suggest to >> implement this communication? > > Yes, IRC (Internet Relay Chat), the oldest but still most widely-used > Internet chat protocol, and - unlike Skype - an open, non-proprietary > standard. Excellent suggestion ! -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.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 gpaque at gmail.com Tue Sep 7 19:48:58 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 19:18:58 -0430 Subject: [governance] Remote participation for IGF 2010: individuals and In-Reply-To: References: <4C866743.3060601@gmail.com> <4C868524.8000102@paque.net> Message-ID: <4C86CF6A.90707@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 vanda at uol.com.br Tue Sep 7 21:56:34 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 22:56:34 -0300 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <4C855F3D.3060702@gmail.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C855F3D.3060702@gmail.com> Message-ID: <02a901cb4ef9$13072650$391572f0$@com.br> Without the intention to extend this debate, I would “vote” for Vancouver – Canada is easier to get Visa than US, Vancouver is cheaper than the other two cities, and people from Asia and Latin America will have less difficulty to attend ( I am afraid the distance for Africans will be a problem, but the cost and the visa may compensate) All the best Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 São Paulo – Brasil Tel: + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob: + 55 11 8181 1464 From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 6:38 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 If our priority is inclusion and a wide range of participation (for me it is), then I think the main argument is indeed ease and cost of travel and visas. However, I think we should ask for WHOM it is going to be easier. NY is easier for me, but I am not a priority for inclusion. I would like to see a stakeholder and geographic breakdown of the attendance list for the '2004 WGIG-inspired meeting in New York was more widely attended' that Milton mentions, as I wonder if this attendance included a wide participation of Africa, Caribbean, Pacific Asian and South American stakeholders, or if it was logically centered on US and US-based participants. Is this data available? Is it possible to do a poll or other sounding to find out which (NY or Geneva) venue would result in a wider (theoretical) range of inclusion, particularly for less represented regions? Best, gp 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. On 9/6/2010 4:42 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: I view the groundswell for Geneva on this list to be a bit self-serving. Of course your Geneva-based orgs want it to stay there. I don’t see why IGC should endorse that as a “pro civil society” position. The only argument of any merit is the visa difficulty issue – if, as Tracy calls into question, that difference still exists. I have my own self-interest, of course, but it seems to me that WSIS and IGF both are highly Euro-centric operations and it would be good to move it away from Europe for at least once. Whether its NY or Vancouver or Hong Kong or Panama matters less to me, although of course NYC is most convenient to me. Wolfgang’s argument that there are more CS organizations in Geneva seems false to me; there are probably more CS organizations in the 300-mi radius of NYC (which includes Montreal and probably also Toronto) than anywhere else in the world. As a strict empirical test of the “reduced participation” claim, let me point out that the March 2004 WGIG-inspired meeting in New York was more widely attended than any subsequent WGIG consultation. I think you can count on a bang-up turnout, if nothing else, if you hold it in NY. From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 3:23 PM To: Sivasubramanian M Cc: Governance List Subject: Re: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 Hi Just read the ICC's statement, which states in part, "The WSIS action lines Forum events in Geneva have drawn upon the fact that many key organizations are located in Geneva, and the participation of many stakeholders, business included, has been facilitated by the fact that other WSIS related activities take place around the same dates. This has enabled participation by many because it took into account the limited time, financial and human resources of many across stakeholder groups. Organizing the WSIS action lines Forum 2011 in New York risks decreasing participation because it would require extensive travel for those participating in the other WSIS related activities in May in Geneva. Feedback from ICC BASIS members and other stakeholders indicates that obtaining visas for the US is extremely difficult for many particularly from developing countries. This would in turn decrease the range of participants. ICC BASIS supports having the WSIS action lines Forum 2011 hosted in Geneva, or by the next lead facilitator, UNESCO in Paris." http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/ICC_BASIS_stmt_re_WSIS_F orum_2011_venue_FINAL_6Sept10.pdf Is this a reasonable position from an IGC perspective ? Best, Bill On Sep 6, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: 2010/9/6 William Drake Hi, We can toss around ideas about where an ideal venue that causes the least hassle for the most people might be, but the WSIS Forum will be held in either New York or Geneva. Lee is probably right about mainstreaming; the question is, on what/whose terms? Personally, I have never noticed that all that many CS people actually attend the WSIS Forums in the first place; they're certainly not much in evidence on the panels, which are largely selected by ITU on an "expert" rather than "stakeholder" basis. But to the extent that IG/ICT-oriented CS people do wish to attend, one would think there's probably greater synergies and cost effectiveness for them in keeping it in Geneva during the same two week bloc as the IGF consultation (assuming those remain in Geneva) and the CSTD. For CS people working in the other areas that are in the UN NY's bailiwick, e.g. disarmament et al, NY is obviously more convenient, but would they be all that interested enough in the typical WSIS Forum topics to attend? Unclear. And I suppose one could widen the optic further and wonder whether this might fit in with larger discussions about the management of ICT-related activities connected to DESA Should there be an IGC response to ITU's "Open Consultation" (means we can use their website, not enter the building), or would consensus being difficult to achieve? If CS does not assert its stakes in WSIS process, the WSIS panels could be engineered to lead to conclusions that the ITU desires, which would be a step back from the progress that the IGF has made. There needs to be an IGC response. Also, IGC could reach out to fair and neutral international organizations to object to and alter the process. Sivasubramanian M Best, Bill On Sep 6, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > Speaking as an academic for whom I admit New York City is convenient and would lowering my personal costs and logistics hassles, we can agree that UN venue decisions have impacts that may vary depending upon where one is coming from. Geneva is a fine (expensive) city, New York has its virtues too. > > A move to New York for wsis 2011 would to me signal a mainstreaming of IG issues wthin UN system; as would establishment of a permanent secretariat in yet a 3rd (developing?) location. > > But Wolfgang, the argument that it would be more difficult to get media/public attention - in New York City - doesn't make much sense to me. In principle it should be easier. There's certainly plenty of media outlets hanging around already looking for things to talk and write about. > > Anyway, as I suggested before, while civil society has some success at substantive issues around IG, venue/location decisions I am afraid remain power politics/business as usual choices. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 11:33 AM > To: wsis-info at itu.int > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 > > Dear friends > > I disagree with the argument that a move from Geneva to to New York of the WSIS Forum 2011 would improve outreach and bring WSIS implementation forward. In contrary I am afraid that a move to NewYork will weaken in particular the involvement of civil society and the academic community as important stakeholders in the WSIS process. A large number of civil society organisations, including represenations of organisations from developing countries, are based in Geneva or not far from Geneva. Moving the event to New York would create additional costs and logistic problems for them which would result in lower participation of civil society organisations. This would certainly undermine the multistakeholder nature of the WSIS implementaiton process. > > Another risk moving the WSIS Forum 2011 to New York would be that the important WSIS issues would be discussed in the shadow of more important political and security issues which dominate the day to day UN acitvities in New York. The WSIS Forum would be just "another conference" and would have difficulties to get the needed public attention. > > Finally I want to flag that in same week the European Union has its annual Future of the Internet Week meetings under the Hungarian Presidency in Budapest. > > > Regards > > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 8 03:36:25 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 13:06:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Remote participation for IGF 2010: individuals and In-Reply-To: <4C86CF6A.90707@paque.net> References: <4C866743.3060601@gmail.com> <4C868524.8000102@paque.net> <4C86CF6A.90707@paque.net> Message-ID: Dear Ginger / Jeremy IRC is OK, but not everyone finds it friendly, for one reason or another. I looked for opensource chat software and found one or two that can be embedded in the IGF website or in a new collaborative portal. One interesting web application that I found is phpfreechat which can be easily integrated into Joomla. There are other possible options. I tested it by installing it within my website and this is what it installs well. This is a test installation in an available webspace: http://turiya.co.in/ign/ We can have one chat interface such as this with multiple, multilingual rooms + a forum/discussion space, a document editing interface etc... Sivasubramanian M On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Great resource, thanks Jeremy. I used to use IRC, but not lately. I will > give it another try. > > Shiva, perhaps you would like to take charge of this, as it is a large, > separate project. > > For the moment, if anyone wants to join the Skype remote moderators' > conversation that we already have implemented, please send me your Skype ID > by private email, and I will add you. > > Shiva, we will watch for your suggestions. Thanks so much!!! > > Best, Ginger > > On 9/7/2010 7:00 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 08-Sep-2010, at 2:32 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Does anyone else have a solution/technique they use or suggest to > implement this communication? > > > Yes, IRC (Internet Relay Chat), the oldest but still most widely-used > Internet chat protocol, and - unlike Skype - an open, non-proprietary > standard. > > The official IGF IRC channel is #igf on the Freenode network (ie. > chat.freenode.net). Language-specific channels #igf-fr, #igf-es etc. also > exist, and anyone can request the administrator (me) to set up channels with > special features such as moderation. > > Free IRC clients are available for every computing platform (just search > Google), and a Web based interface is also available at > http://igf-online.net/chat.php. > > This facility has been available since 2007, but there are usually only a > small group of us online. This year I'd like to see many more, so please > join in! You'll find it a much more pleasant alternative to Skype. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 8 04:11:14 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 11:11:14 +0300 Subject: [governance] Speaker's list Message-ID: <8A425523-C02D-4EE0-A8D1-78B67B6C0F33@psg.com> hi, List of speakers for opening and closing is being assembled today. So please send the Secretariat the ordered list as soon as possible. Thanks a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Wed Sep 8 08:22:39 2010 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 05:22:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum 2011 Message-ID: <201009081222.o88CMdow011620@well.com> In response to Open Consultation: Expression of Views on Venue for WSIS Forum 2011 > a) enlarge the geographic reach of the discussions on the implementation of the WSIS decisions Customarily in open conferences a major block of participants come from the host and neighbouring countries. Due to its geographic position NYC should attract mostly north americans and a fair number of south americans. On the other hand European participation, and primarily African and Asian participation should be substantially reduced. In addition, visa and security controls for traveling to USA are often rated as more difficult than in Europe or some other countries. > b) enhance visibility of ICT debates in UN diplomatic circles of NY; which may result in better reflection of this aspect in the relevant UNGA resolutions concerning economic, social, educational and cultural development, particularly in the least developing countries, land-lock countries Does this mean that resolutions made in NYC could not have been made in Geneva, and vice versa ? Then it would be unclear what advantages, for whom, could be expected from any location. > c) attract new stakeholders, including international organizations, private sector and civil society organizations active around the UN in New York, Same comments as for a) > d) enhance participation of NY based organizations, including, UNDP, UNDESA, UNICEF, UNOCHA and others in WSIS implementation and follow-up process. It should be noted that the move of the event to NY may entail some logistical challenges for organizers and may add to travel and visa expenses for participants. Same comments as for a) Organizing the next WSIS forum in NYC, Geneva, or some other city should definitely be based on the preferences of potential participants, specially those who do not belong to well funded organizations. However, there may appear some constraints due to financial, administrative, or political factors. These factors should be clearly stated. In particular, the choice of NYC would appear as a move to bring WSIS matters closer to USA powers, while the USA control on the internet has been a bone of contention since early WSIS debates. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 8 09:56:10 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 22:56:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] ICANN Nominating Committee selection results In-Reply-To: <4C86B705.80208@gih.com> References: <4C86B705.80208@gih.com> Message-ID: Bertrand, congratulations! and so you are leaving the government!! izumi 2010/9/8 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond : >  Just hot off the press: > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-07sep10-en.htm > > O. > > -- > 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 Dixie at global-partners.co.uk Wed Sep 8 10:24:35 2010 From: Dixie at global-partners.co.uk (Dixie Hawtin) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 15:24:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Freedom of Expression Meeting In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F85@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <3FD0818B24BA456A9FC808FE1D1751B3@userPC> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F85@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C6F10C46A@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Hi all The Freedom of Expression Dynamic Coalition is planning its coalition meeting at the IGF on Thursday 16 September, 14:15-16:15 in Room 9. The meeting is an opportunity for freedom of expression advocates to discuss any issues of mutual concern, take stock of FoE at the IGF, and for organisations and individuals to present initiatives in this area. If you have ideas about topics for discussion or would like to present an issue or initiative, please let us know! For more information see original email below. Many thanks, Dixie ___________________________________________________________ Dixie Hawtin Researcher Global Partners and Associates 338 City Road, London, EC1V 2PY, UK Office: + 44 207 239 8251 Mobile: +44 7769 181 556 dixie at global-partners.co.uk www.global-partners.co.uk From: expression-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:expression-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Ben Wagner Sent: 04 September 2010 18:51 To: Expression IPjustice Subject: [Expression] Dynamic Coalition Meeting in Vilnius Dear Members of the FoE Dynamic Coalition, as you may already know, we have received a slot at the IGF in Vilnius from 14:15 - 16:15 on Thursday 16.9. in Room 9. We look forward to seeing many of you there and hope that the debate was as stimulating as it was last year in Sharm El-Sheikh. The meeting itself is coming ever closer and several coalition members have indicated that they would like to discuss some of the FoE issues they face in their own work. We are still collecting these ideas and are open to submissions from other coalition members. If anyone else would like to discuss specific issues, we would be grateful if you could send them to LisaH at global-partners.co.uk and b at nwagner.org, or post them directly to this list. Moreover we would like to use the coalition meeting in Vilnius to take stock of FoE issues at the IGF. As a result we would be grateful if important FoE issues or discussions which arise during the IGF are posted to the coalition mailing list. This should facilitate discussion during the meeting and ensure that the coalition keeps abreast of important FoE debates within the IGF. Best wishes from Florence, Ben Wagner ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 8 10:38:57 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:08:57 -0430 Subject: [governance] EU representatives and CS new meeting time Thurs 16th 18:30 Room 3 Message-ID: <4C87A001.3030704@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Sep 8 11:34:17 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 20:34:17 +0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN Nominating Committee selection results In-Reply-To: <4C86B705.80208@gih.com> References: <4C86B705.80208@gih.com> Message-ID: My personal congratulations to Bertrand, Sebastien, Carlos and Marc Rotenberg. It has been my great pleasure to have worked and cooperated with you all on many occasions including the IGF, ICANN and OECD Ministerial on the Future of the Internet Economy. I wish you all good luck and look forward to your completing successful terms at ICANN and continuing to take forward your people-oriented positions on Internet issues in your new roles at ICANN! Take care Best Regards Fouad Bajwa On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 3:04 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >  Just hot off the press: > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-07sep10-en.htm > > O. > > -- > 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 -- 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Sep 8 17:38:02 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:38:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Nominating Committee selection results In-Reply-To: References: <4C86B705.80208@gih.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100908233623.05dc3540@jefsey.com> +1 Fouad said it all and well. Thanks. At 17:34 08/09/2010, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >My personal congratulations to Bertrand, Sebastien, Carlos and Marc >Rotenberg. It has been my great pleasure to have worked and cooperated >with you all on many occasions including the IGF, ICANN and OECD >Ministerial on the Future of the Internet Economy. > >I wish you all good luck and look forward to your completing >successful terms at ICANN and continuing to take forward your >people-oriented positions on Internet issues in your new roles at >ICANN! > >Take care > >Best 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 8 20:32:40 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 17:32:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the Empowered or In-Reply-To: References: <8E063AE47C2E453EA03A1F7C7BD3E816@userPC> <614886.62805.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <388029.95727.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Paul, You list 3 criterion for appropriate open data. Let us apply it to a quasi-governmental international body. This takes out the argument of competition and presupposes a duty to the public.  It also removes the balancing act of profit versus corporate citizenry. It also removes nationalistic motivations and justifications.  So let us use ICANN for the model. 1.  Transparency (gaining information, as in a clean, transparent windshield allowing us to see) I do not see this in ICANN 2 . Knowledge (good analysis of the data obtained via some form of transparency - a subject for ongoing education) ICANN clearly uses a propaganda model as opposed to interractive participatory education. 3.  Remedies (ability to apply knowledge in an effective way via the courts or publicity or other means in order to alter the external environment in a beneficial way) ICANN specifically intentionally omits enforcement clauses in their agreements and specifically denies 3rd party right to force compliance. I think we know that as for WHOIS data and Name Transferring Policies and gTLD selection none of the above is a priority or requirement for ICANN.  So I assume you are saying that ICANNs' data is unreliable, untrustworthy and bordering on completely bad? ________________________________ From: Paul Lehto To: Eric Dierker Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein ; Rui Correia Sent: Tue, September 7, 2010 12:42:27 PM Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the Empowered or On 9/7/10, Eric Dierker wrote: > No matter what: Marketing is education and education is marketing. Knowledge > and > wisdom come from discerning what something teaches us.  It does not come > from > deciding if it is true or reliable.  Data must be taken in context just like > the > words we use.  If you learn something from a free advertisement, one can > only > hope you have the intelligence to know that you did not just learn exactly > what > the ad said, but rather something about the product or service that is > helpful > to making informed decisions.  "juicy fruit" is neither it is a gum. But we > learn from the ad and marketing that juicy and fruit are what the sellers > want > us to think about their product --- so do we buy it because it is a juicy > piece > of fruit -- no,,  but because we like the jingle and it was displayed well > -- we > know that. > > Please get off the notion of protecting us from ourselves. OK Eric, you are showing that you are smart enough to distinguish an advertising message from the truth of the matter.  This is the distinction that I'm pointing to, and you yourself demonstrate an application of it.  That being said, there are much more subtle and difficult applications of the principle when the data is not in the form of an obvious jingle, but is, for example, economic data provided by a government as supposedly objective data, or corporate economic forecasts that can emanate from cooked books.  I stipulate that  you are also aware of risks there, but this is a topic for legitimate public education, and you were not born knowing these things. Therefore I do not agree that people are 'stupid' if they need to either be taught these things or reminded of them.  Nor is it fair to say this is "protecting us from ourselves", instead it is enabling each individual to think for themselves and to question sources of data and/or authority, because "open" data does not necessarily mean accurate and truthful data, nor does open data mean that our hard won knowledge is something we can actually do something about, because we may lack realistic remedies.  Effectiveness comes in three parts: 1.  Transparency (gaining information, as in a clean, transparent windshield allowing us to see) 2 . Knowledge (good analysis of the data obtained via some form of transparency - a subject for ongoing education) 3.  Remedies (ability to apply knowledge in an effective way via the courts or publicity or other means in order to alter the external environment in a beneficial way) Paul Lehto, J.D. > ________________________________ > From: Paul Lehto > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > Cc: Rui Correia > Sent: Fri, September 3, 2010 9:25:58 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the Empowered > or > > "Open data" is a public good, but unless it is "open and honest" data, > the public is in effect being manipulated rather than manipulating > honest data.  I'm inclined to support open data but with a major > caveat. > > Hard won data and knowledge, such as professional knowledge, IP, etc., > tends to be hoarded on the stated grounds of recovering investment & > profiting from innovation. If it is initially protected data/knowledge > and then liberated to be open, it is more likely reliable or honest > data or knowledge.  When it is provided for free in the first place, > since most data has at least a nominal cost and some of the best data > is hard to come by, it raises the question of whether open data is > open and honest data. > > Advertising is always free to us, and the advertising industry stands > as a trillion dollar proof of the eagerness to provide us with free, > open data in order to manipulate us in the direction of the data > provider's will. > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > > On 9/3/10, Michael Gurstein wrote: >> Sorry Rui, the context is the on-going and extremely interesting >> discussion >> around "open data" (follow the links below... >> >> Several of those involved in this list are also involved in issues around >> "open data/knowledge" although I'm not really sure there is a direct >> connection to Internet Governance. >> >> "The open data  movement in the >> area of access to public (and other) information is a relatively new but >> very significant, and potentially powerful, emerging force.  It has now >> been >> widely endorsed by among others >> > html> Tim Berners-Lee the Father of the Internet. The overall intention is >> to make local, regional and national data (and particularly publicly >> acquired data) available in a form that allows for direct manipulation >> using >> software tools as for example, for the purposes of cross-tabulation, >> visualization, mapping and so on." >> >> Mike >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 7:17 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein >> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the >> Empowered >> or >> >> >> Mike >> >> What exactly do you mean by data and access to data? >> >> Rui >> >> >> On 3 September 2010 14:46, Michael Gurstein wrote: >> >> >> Perhaps a wee bit off topic, but there may be an interest. >> >> Mike >> >> >> Efforts to extend access to "data" will perhaps inevitably create a "data >> divide" parallel to the oft-discussed "digital divide" between those who >> have access to data which could have significance in their daily lives and >> those who don't. Associated with this will one can assume, be many of the >> same background conditions which have been identified as likely reasons >> for >> the digital divide-that is differences in income, education, literacy and >> so >> on.  However, just as with the "digital divide", these divisions don't >> simply stop or be resolved with the provision of digital (or data) >> "access". >> What is necessary as well, is that those for whom access is being provided >> are in a position to actually make use of the now available access (to the >> Internet or to data) in ways that are meaningful and beneficial for them. >> >> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/open-data-empowering-the-empowered- >> > -%0Aor-effective-data-use-for-everyone/> >> or-effective-data-use-for-everyone/ >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> _________________________ >> >> Rui Correia >> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >> Angola Liaison Consultant >> 2 Cutten St >> Horison >> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >> South Africa >> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >> _______________ >> àáâãçéêíóôõúç >> >> >> >> > > > -- > 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 -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 8 21:24:56 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 09:24:56 +0800 Subject: [governance] Results of poll on IGF opening and closing speakers Message-ID: <2E42BC2D-0876-4447-8C6C-BCA79CF3B2CB@ciroap.org> The results are as follows. 128 responses were received, 117 in full and the balance in part (ie. only one of the two questions), from 463 invitations sent. This is a response rate of 27.6%, which is reasonable by IGC standards, bearing in mind that some people are subscribed twice or more under different addresses, and that we have some lurkers, eg. from the IGF Secretariat, who do not participate in the IGC's consensus decision-making. I'll take the results question by question. On the first question, there was a clear enough view that Ginger and I, as the IGC coordinators, should take the opening and closing slots; this was also the only choice supported by more than half the respondents. Parminder and Wolfgang were next most common choices. Karen Banks and Valeria Betancourt were the women who received the most support, though with less than one third of respondents for either of them. Therefore I will be recommending to the IGF Secretariat that Ginger and I speak. If they do not agree with this, then I will suggest that Parminder and Valeria speak (although Karen received equal support, Valeria pips Karen on geographical diversity - sorry Karen). Here are the percentage breakdowns for the first question (sorry, this may look bad if your email program doesn't support HTML): Which four names should be put forward as civil society speakers? Answer Count Percentage Fouad Bajwa (a) 33 25.78% Fatimata Seye Sylla (b) 28 21.88% Valeria Betancourt (c) 36 28.12% Wolfgang Kleinwachter (d) 55 42.97% Parminder Jeet Singh (e) 64 50.00% Co-coordinators (Jeremy Malcolm and Ginger Paque) (f) 75 58.59% Karen Banks (g) 36 28.12% Ben Akoh (h) 17 13.28% Katitza Rodriguez (i) 32 25.00% Marilia Maciel (available for opening only) (j) 33 25.78% On the second question, the most popular answer was "Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance". There are five other answers that were also clearly more popular than the others: the development dimension of IG, the retention of the IGF's core characteristics, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the desirability of improving inclusion and participation, and the desirability that the IGF continue to evolve and innovate. Leaving aside "Other", there were only three questions that received support from less than a third of respondents: congratulating the IGF on its successes, the gender dimension and the role of dynamic coalitions. So leaving these aside, all of the available choices of theme were quite popular. Here is the complete breakdown of responses to the second question: What are the top five themes to suggest the speakers address in their presentations? Answer Count Percentage Congratulating the IGF (on the completion of its first term, its innovative structure, etc.) (a) 32 25.00% Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Internet (b) 65 50.78% Development dimension of Internet governance (c) 70 54.69% Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance (d) 78 60.94% Retention of IGF's core characteristics (multistakeholderism, openness, consultative program shaping processes) (e) 68 53.12% Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, within its non-binding mandate (f) 54 42.19% Gender dimension of Internet governance (g) 16 12.50% Desirability of improving inclusion and participation (including remote participation) at the IGF (h) 57 44.53% Role of dynamic coalitions (i) 24 18.75% Non-negotiated outputs such as "messages from" or "recommendations at" the IGF (j) 37 28.91% Other 10 7.81% Of the ten "Other" responses, four link in with other available answers: Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, with a modified mandate to give its outputs more weight [an extended version of answer (f)] An articulated, hierarchical scheme for producing consensus "messages" or "recommendations" [an extended version of answer (j)] Consideration of a more serious role in global net gov policymaking, building on first 5 years of talk shop [an extension of answers (f) and (j)] All of these are obviously important... hopefully we can work all of the ideas in - e.g. combine those around IGF characteristics, enhanced cooperation and continuation of IGF [links answers (a) to (j). The other six are more or less novel: ICANN review and IANA contract Increased involvement of developing country participants in shaping the agenda of the IGF, greater role for regional and national meetings in shaping the IGF rather than the MAG Network neutrality, privacy and communication freedom over the Internet Importance of an open and accessible Internet A Review Report (from CS) on MAG Responsibilities vs Accountability w.r.t. UNSG mandate (which global issues resolved or what challenges handled by IGF MAG at Global Challenges for Internet Global Level) Free Software - Free Knowledge So, it appears likely that Ginger and I will speak, and that we will focus on the themes that received the greatest support - whilst trying to at least touch on most of them. Ginger has offered to speak first, and will cover "involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation process". Graphs of these results are available on our Web site at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/37. The exact results of "who voted for what" will also be put online in due course. If you want to see them now, I can send you the raw data files and you can pore through them at your leisure. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Sep 8 22:43:55 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 22:43:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the Empowered or In-Reply-To: <388029.95727.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <8E063AE47C2E453EA03A1F7C7BD3E816@userPC> <614886.62805.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <388029.95727.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/8/10, Eric Dierker wrote: > I think we know that as for WHOIS data and Name Transferring Policies and > gTLD > selection none of the above is a priority or requirement for ICANN. So I > assume > you are saying that ICANNs' data is unreliable, untrustworthy and bordering > on > completely bad? Under the three necessary parts of Transparency (information), Knowledge (analysis), and Remedies (empowered action based on analyzed knowledge), if we accept Eric's factual assiessment on all three, especially on the lack of transparency in the very first step, does it mean that ICANN's data is unreliable, untrustworthy and bordering on completely bad? ANSWER: You're proposing a meta-analysis of ICANN data, which presumes at least partial transparency exists, yet it is not fully transparent. Unless the partially transparent data set you are suggesting a critique for is able to be isolated reliably from the non-disclosed data (thus making it effectively transparent for the limited purpose of its own analysis), the non-disclosed data casts a big shadow over what is disclosed, because that data could change the meaning, context or even the results of using the limited data that was disclosed. Step Two (knowledge/analysis) is primarily the independent right or duty of each user of a given piece of data, except to the extent that a disclosing organization can make data more user-friendly without prejudice to other ways of analyzing the data that is fine (for example, it might be thought that producing a pdf is user friendly transparency, but if the pdf is of data originally in an excel spreadsheet then producing a pdf is making analysis more difficult). Also a disclosing organization may and sometimes must provide its own analysis of the data which should also be transparent, but not without also disclosing the data so that others can independently do their own analysis and come to their own conclusions. ICANN's nontransparency raises serious questions about the reliability of partial data that is released. Whether I can pronounce it "bad" without resort to more facts than those in this thread? No, not without more facts and analysis (which I'm sure exist, but not in this thread) Paul Lehto, J.D. > ________________________________ > From: Paul Lehto > To: Eric Dierker > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein ; Rui > Correia > Sent: Tue, September 7, 2010 12:42:27 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the Empowered > or > > On 9/7/10, Eric Dierker wrote: >> No matter what: Marketing is education and education is marketing. >> Knowledge >> and >> wisdom come from discerning what something teaches us. It does not come >> from >> deciding if it is true or reliable. Data must be taken in context just >> like >> the >> words we use. If you learn something from a free advertisement, one can >> only >> hope you have the intelligence to know that you did not just learn exactly >> what >> the ad said, but rather something about the product or service that is >> helpful >> to making informed decisions. "juicy fruit" is neither it is a gum. But >> we >> learn from the ad and marketing that juicy and fruit are what the sellers >> want >> us to think about their product --- so do we buy it because it is a juicy >> piece >> of fruit -- no,, but because we like the jingle and it was displayed well >> -- we >> know that. >> >> Please get off the notion of protecting us from ourselves. > > OK Eric, you are showing that you are smart enough to distinguish an > advertising message from the truth of the matter. This is the > distinction that I'm pointing to, and you yourself demonstrate an > application of it. That being said, there are much more subtle and > difficult applications of the principle when the data is not in the > form of an obvious jingle, but is, for example, economic data provided > by a government as supposedly objective data, or corporate economic > forecasts that can emanate from cooked books. I stipulate that you > are also aware of risks there, but this is a topic for legitimate > public education, and you were not born knowing these things. > Therefore I do not agree that people are 'stupid' if they need to > either be taught these things or reminded of them. Nor is it fair to > say this is "protecting us from ourselves", instead it is enabling > each individual to think for themselves and to question sources of > data and/or authority, because "open" data does not necessarily mean > accurate and truthful data, nor does open data mean that our hard won > knowledge is something we can actually do something about, because we > may lack realistic remedies. Effectiveness comes in three parts: > > 1. Transparency (gaining information, as in a clean, transparent > windshield allowing us to see) > > 2 . Knowledge (good analysis of the data obtained via some form of > transparency - a subject for ongoing education) > > 3. Remedies (ability to apply knowledge in an effective way via the > courts or publicity or other means in order to alter the external > environment in a beneficial way) > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > >> ________________________________ >> From: Paul Lehto >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein >> Cc: Rui Correia >> Sent: Fri, September 3, 2010 9:25:58 AM >> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the >> Empowered >> or >> >> "Open data" is a public good, but unless it is "open and honest" data, >> the public is in effect being manipulated rather than manipulating >> honest data. I'm inclined to support open data but with a major >> caveat. >> >> Hard won data and knowledge, such as professional knowledge, IP, etc., >> tends to be hoarded on the stated grounds of recovering investment & >> profiting from innovation. If it is initially protected data/knowledge >> and then liberated to be open, it is more likely reliable or honest >> data or knowledge. When it is provided for free in the first place, >> since most data has at least a nominal cost and some of the best data >> is hard to come by, it raises the question of whether open data is >> open and honest data. >> >> Advertising is always free to us, and the advertising industry stands >> as a trillion dollar proof of the eagerness to provide us with free, >> open data in order to manipulate us in the direction of the data >> provider's will. >> >> Paul Lehto, J.D. >> >> On 9/3/10, Michael Gurstein wrote: >>> Sorry Rui, the context is the on-going and extremely interesting >>> discussion >>> around "open data" (follow the links below... >>> >>> Several of those involved in this list are also involved in issues around >>> "open data/knowledge" although I'm not really sure there is a direct >>> connection to Internet Governance. >>> >>> "The open data movement in the >>> area of access to public (and other) information is a relatively new but >>> very significant, and potentially powerful, emerging force. It has now >>> been >>> widely endorsed by among others >>> >> html> Tim Berners-Lee the Father of the Internet. The overall intention >>> is >>> to make local, regional and national data (and particularly publicly >>> acquired data) available in a form that allows for direct manipulation >>> using >>> software tools as for example, for the purposes of cross-tabulation, >>> visualization, mapping and so on." >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 7:17 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein >>> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the >>> Empowered >>> or >>> >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> What exactly do you mean by data and access to data? >>> >>> Rui >>> >>> >>> On 3 September 2010 14:46, Michael Gurstein wrote: >>> >>> >>> Perhaps a wee bit off topic, but there may be an interest. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> Efforts to extend access to "data" will perhaps inevitably create a "data >>> divide" parallel to the oft-discussed "digital divide" between those who >>> have access to data which could have significance in their daily lives >>> and >>> those who don't. Associated with this will one can assume, be many of the >>> same background conditions which have been identified as likely reasons >>> for >>> the digital divide-that is differences in income, education, literacy and >>> so >>> on. However, just as with the "digital divide", these divisions don't >>> simply stop or be resolved with the provision of digital (or data) >>> "access". >>> What is necessary as well, is that those for whom access is being >>> provided >>> are in a position to actually make use of the now available access (to >>> the >>> Internet or to data) in ways that are meaningful and beneficial for them. >>> >>> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/open-data-empowering-the-empowered- >>> >> -%0Aor-effective-data-use-for-everyone/> >>> or-effective-data-use-for-everyone/ >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> _________________________ >>> >>> Rui Correia >>> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >>> Angola Liaison Consultant >>> 2 Cutten St >>> Horison >>> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >>> South Africa >>> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >>> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >>> _______________ >>> àáâãçéêíóôõúç >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > > -- > 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 -- 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 b.schombe at gmail.com Thu Sep 9 04:44:17 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 09:44:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN Nominating Committee selection results In-Reply-To: <4C86B705.80208@gih.com> References: <4C86B705.80208@gih.com> Message-ID: Congratulations to all ICANN Board of Directors Cherine Chalaby, Egypt Bertrand de La Chapelle, France Erika Mann, Germany ALAC Sebastien Bachollet, France Marc Rotenberg, United States GNSO Council Carlos Aguirre, Argentina ccNSO Council Sokol Haxhiu, Albania SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN 2010/9/7 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > Just hot off the press: > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-07sep10-en.htm > > O. > > -- > 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Sep 9 07:47:47 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 13:47:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the In-Reply-To: <388029.95727.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <8E063AE47C2E453EA03A1F7C7BD3E816@userPC> <614886.62805.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <388029.95727.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100909123524.05dc3918@jefsey.com> Eric, information is the difference between what you know and what you perceive, yet upto now people have considered information positively and confusion (contradiction between what you know and what you perceive), noise and disinformation as various forms of entropie (negative information). This helps ICANN (and many others). Actually, in the conceptual dimension of information the range is not from silence to information, but from maximum information loss to maximum information acquisition. Noise being structural, confusion unvolontary, and disinformation planned. The ICANN communication is semantically noisy using a model of network outside of common reality, confused by lack of common pertinence and of coherence resulting from its ambiguious charter (a tiny spot of the namespace it wants to make a golden mine for some), and instinctive disinformation to screen its lack of identifed deliverable. All this because they have nothing to actually sell and however a long term plan of survival expenses : the less we need them, the more they have to spend. They could however try to produce something useful people would really need. They have done something into that direction with the IANA but Google wants it. They have tried the gTLDs but had a conflict with technologies and GAC they tried to address with Fast Track. Their problem now is that no one believes they will last very long in their current status, due to the naming evolution decided by the RFC 5890 suites they do not even want to consider while it technically implies the end of the restricted DNS as we known it. Class IN identificative (authority choses) names' ISO and generic TLD is too small to resist against designative (I chose) and appellative (we chose) diferent types of domain names. For years I never use any kind of root server system (too risky!). 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 9 08:11:58 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 15:11:58 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20100909123524.05dc3918@jefsey.com> References: <8E063AE47C2E453EA03A1F7C7BD3E816@userPC> <614886.62805.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <388029.95727.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20100909123524.05dc3918@jefsey.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 2:47 PM, jefsey wrote: > Eric, > > information is the difference between what you know and what you perceive, > yet upto now people have considered information positively and confusion > (contradiction between what you know and what you perceive), noise and > disinformation as various forms of entropie (negative information). This > helps ICANN (and many others). > > Actually, in the conceptual dimension of information the range is not from > silence to information, but from maximum information loss to maximum > information acquisition. Noise being structural, confusion unvolontary, and > disinformation planned. The ICANN communication is semantically noisy using > a model of network outside of common reality, confused by lack of common > pertinence and of coherence resulting from its ambiguious charter (a tiny > spot of the namespace it wants to make a golden mine for some), and > instinctive disinformation to screen its lack of identifed deliverable. All > this because they have nothing to actually sell and however a long term plan > of survival expenses : the less we need them, the more they have to spend. > > They could however try to produce something useful people would really need. > They have done something into that direction with the IANA but Google wants > it. I'm not parsing what you are saying here? Are you talking about the dashboard? http://forms.icann.org/idashboard/public/ Why would Google want this? or are you talking about the names n numbers? Why would Google want that? Far too much headache for far too little ROI IMHO. They make Billions per quarter, DNS isn't "profitable" compared to search,etc that Google does. Please explain! -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Thu Sep 9 11:50:54 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 08:50:54 -0700 Subject: [governance] Broadband Commission to recommend 'broadband inclusion for all' to UN Message-ID: <5B01B07E2B36471E964C859BF4D2E001@userPC> This is very good news if true... Particularly the placement with the MDG's. Mike http://www.thewirereport.ca/reports/content/11230-broadband_commission_to_re commend_broadband_inclusion_for_all_to_un Broadband Commission to recommend 'broadband inclusion for all' to UN September 8, 2010 - 5:10pm - Simon Doyle The international Broadband Commission is preparing to file a report with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Sept. 19 that will issue a declaration on "broadband inclusion for all." The report of the Broadband Commission-a joint project of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)-will land on the secretary general's desk one day before a three-day world leaders' summit in New York on the UN Millennium Development Goals (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 From yuliya at morenets-cybercrime.eu Thu Sep 9 13:28:37 2010 From: yuliya at morenets-cybercrime.eu (yuliya at morenets-cybercrime.eu) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 19:28:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Workshop 109-Use of ICT by the people with migrant background Message-ID: <1284053317.4c891945e6e54@webmail.ovh.fr> Dear all, We would like to send you the invitation for the workshop we organise in Vilnus, Workshop n°109- Use of ICT by people with migrant background, it will take place on the 14th of September from 09am to 11am, room 2. We would be very happy if you could attend it and participate and give your opinion concerning this issue. Here attached is the invitation to the workshop with the detailed information. Could you circulate it around to the people that will be present in Vilnius? Thank you! We hope you will be able to attend it, Yours sincerely, Yuliya Morenets TaC-Together against Cybercrime Representative 28, rue D'Ypres F-67000 Strasbourg Tel.+33607962530 www.againstcybercrime.eu Follow us on facebook____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For 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: Invitation IGF Workshop 109-Use of ICT by people with migrant background.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 62911 bytes Desc: not available URL: From qshatti at gmail.com Thu Sep 9 13:42:39 2010 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 20:42:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN Nominating Committee selection results In-Reply-To: <4C86B705.80208@gih.com> References: <4C86B705.80208@gih.com> Message-ID: Congratulation Bertrand and wish you all the best in your new position as an ICANN Board Member. Your knowledge and independent opinion will be a positive additiin to work of the ICANN board. I am also proud and happy to see Cherine Chalaby from Egypt to be the first from the Arab World as an ICANN Board Member wishing her all the succcess in her new position. Regards, Qusai AlShatti On Wednesday, September 8, 2010, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >  Just hot off the press: > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-07sep10-en.htm > > O. > > -- > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu Sep 9 14:24:36 2010 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 01:24:36 +0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN Nominating Committee selection results In-Reply-To: References: <4C86B705.80208@gih.com> Message-ID: <4C892664.1080303@gmx.net> On 09/10/2010 12:42 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: > Congratulation Bertrand and wish you all the best in your new position > as an ICANN Board Member. Your knowledge and independent opinion will > be a positive additiin to work of the ICANN board. I am also proud and > happy to see Cherine Chalaby from Egypt to be the first from the Arab > World as an ICANN Board Member wishing her all the succcess in her new > position. > > Regards, > > Qusai AlShatti > Not her - him, :-) Also in Cambodia, we do not know the gender from the name... Norbert -- 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 Law, Rules, and Common Sense Sunday, 5.9.2010 http://tinyurl.com/366f5f4 (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 meryem at marzouki.info Thu Sep 9 15:57:54 2010 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 21:57:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Nominating Committee selection results In-Reply-To: <4C892664.1080303@gmx.net> References: <4C86B705.80208@gih.com> <4C892664.1080303@gmx.net> Message-ID: <2FD7C5A6-870F-442A-8090-254B9E7DC876@marzouki.info> Le 9 sept. 10 à 20:24, Norbert Klein a écrit : > On 09/10/2010 12:42 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: >> >> happy to see Cherine Chalaby from Egypt to be the first from the >> Arab >> World as an ICANN Board Member wishing her all the succcess in her >> new >> position. > > Not her - him, > > :-) > > Also in Cambodia, we do not know the gender from the name... In Arabic, we normally do. I would also have said Cherine was a she. In Arab (and Farsi as well: Shirin Ebadi, Iranian Nobel Peace prize 2003, who was CS representative at WSIS opening ceremony in 2005 in Tunis), Cherine, Sherine, Chirine, Cyrine, Syrine, Shirin and all other variations. are women names, including in Egypt. But if Cherine Chalaby is a man, then so be it.. this wont help gender balance at ICANN;) 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Sep 9 19:23:30 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 01:23:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the In-Reply-To: References: <8E063AE47C2E453EA03A1F7C7BD3E816@userPC> <614886.62805.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <388029.95727.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20100909123524.05dc3918@jefsey.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100909174909.05c412f8@jefsey.com> At 14:11 09/09/2010, McTim wrote: >On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 2:47 PM, jefsey wrote: >Why would Google want this? or are you talking about the names n >numbers? Why would Google want that? Far too much headache for far >too little ROI IMHO. They make Billions per quarter, DNS isn't >"profitable" compared to search,etc that Google does. Tim, Sorry, but this calls for some explanations that you probably already know, but that others may not. I will try to be as concise as I can. The current Internet is about English ASCII information dissemination (passive content) with an evolution towards UTF8. The equilibrium that we currently have will have to adapt to a full UTF8 support (naming and content) of the linguistic diversity (which is also economic diversity). Every information provider and naming administrator has a need, therefore, to adapt to IDNA2008 and multilingualism. 1. ICANN ICANN's job is to manage a small Excel table. They have always had to be good enough to make believe that this depended on complex unnecessary contracts to create and manage scarcities (TLDs, IPv4). They have intelligently started first taking control of the IANA (focal point), then in launching the TLD (linguistic groups of servers) saturation proposition, and in pursuing its make believe "I am the center of the world" permanent strategy with DNSSEC. At the same time, they made a mistake. To start Fast Track quickly enough, they privileged IDNccTLDs over IDNgTLD projects. It is in this way that they made a lot of money to bepotentially available, ready to support any innovation that bypasses their blocking "monopoly". They also made it impossible for local/cultural non-profit organizations to plan a TLD. This wqy they opposed the planned grassroots Multilinc and Projet.FRA tests. 2. GOOGLE The Unicode consortium (mainly IBM, M$, Apple, Oracle, Yahoo!, and Google - you could initially read this list in decreasing order, but now in increasing order) has the internationalization strategy. 2.1. What is internationalization? With the world's globalization, there is an accentuated dichotomy between norms and standards. Until now, they have gone together as US, French, European, etc. norms/standards, the norms being a concept for the description of the local normality and the standard a concept of what we want to make with this normality locally. Now, the norms tend to become the global normality, and international standards infiltration is the way to conquer foreign markets with the standards of national industries. Internationalization (of national standards) is WW III. Until now, war was to plundering other countries to resolve sovereign debt problems. Today, this is no longer possible when the wealth of a country is its stable just-in-time production and services and debts are interrelated. Therefore, what countries look for is a higher growth ratio for their exports than for their debts so that they are then considered as AAA++. The same is true for leading industries (e.g. Google). Standardization is a powerful and stable way to obtain this by forcing other countries to run their just-in-time processes with nationally compatible solutions and not overly innovative [MHL1] products. This is why Mark Davis' (President, Unicode) "globalization" is a key element in the Unicode consortium industrials growth as well as USA's growth (FYI globalization = internationalization of the medium + localization of the ends + filtering of the languages - on the Internet and in the information centers). 2.2. Natural strategy First, IMHOthere isn't a finalized strategy offered by anyone. However, there are natural trends and common sense attitudes. This is either because people saw, see, or shall eventually see that things fit better for them in one way more than another. The Internet is the internationalization's main medium: they must keep some control of it. The IANA is its information core and RFCs are its guidelines. However, the IANA's exposure makes it unadvisable to visibly control it. Therefore, the Members of the Unicode consortium are/should be happy: 1) That ICANN is believed to be the one in charge (IETF actually is of most) 2) They have overloaded the IANA with the language tables (RFC 4645) 3) Which may require an IANA computer response that only Google could sustain (they openly suggested that they could provide the machines) should these tables become used in the present state of Mark Davis' RFCs (5646) 4) i.e. permitting traffic and search service control on a cultural (hence economic) basis - network neutrality is nothing vs. service neutrality. 5) They control the code of Mark Davis' ICU routines, which in turn control that use: they are universally deployed in protocols and languages to interoperate with Unicode information. De facto, through the IANA, the Internet can be DoS-ed by Mark Davis. Just one line added to the ICU code, to update local user linguistic tables on a regular basis, and the IANA would dump 90% of its content into each user with a new ICU. This would represent a progressive (as programs get updated) network overload. All the same, Google + Public DNS can represent the largest resolution system. Yet it has to be protected from networked alternative resolution habits, the DDDS possible evolution (extension of the DNS type of database to other issues) and ISO 11179 metadata registry norms. Mark Davis, was with Apple, then IBM, and now Google, as is the case of Harald Alvestrand, former IETF Chair, Member of the Unicode Board, Member of the ICANN board and their Internet, VP, Vint Cerf, founder of ISOC and Chair of the IETF WG/IDNABIS, which had to produce IDNA2008. 3. Internet Users In all of this, the milked users have never been considered, except through "the Internet for all" slogan, user's purse centric doctrine, and democratic liberty campaigns to "free" them from their national protections. The world information system is planned to be centralized by Google. With the current IANA and DNS, this was in fact possible. This has changed this year, however, with the adoption of RFC 5890's suites documenting IDNA2008. For various reasons, IDNA was to be separated from Unicode (including the changes in namespace due to new Unicode releases). This was a strategic thread for Unicode leading members. Maybe that is why the WG/IDNABIS mailing list belonged to Harald Alvestrand, Mark Davis was the only one protesting at the end, and Vint Cerf was the Chair. Everything was tightly locked. The reality is that they had bet on the wrong horse: Unicode cannot fulfill the job. The reason why that is the case is that Unicode is a typographic solution, for scripts. The need is for an orthotypographic solution, for languages. The typical trouble is the French (Latin) majuscules and their needed support by Projet.FRA. Because "Etat.fra" means "State" and "état.fra" means "status". Equivalent issues exist in every script. French, and to a lesser extent German, Greek, Iranian, Tamil, etc., people attended the WG and a full Arabic mailing list watched closely. Unicode has no way to support the "majuscule" or other orthotypographic metadata information. Therefore, there would be no way to support the Intersem (semiotics and semantics) and the semantic addressing system (SAS) through the DNS, that is, if IDNA is controlled from within the Internet by a unique RFC for all kind of uses by the linguistic diversity. This is why there was a need for a multi-layer DNS encapsulation that is specified on the user side. This is what I initially proposed and that they had hoped that they could avoid. The result is what IAB/IETF wished for and what French/Latin language and many other languages need: no character mapping within the Internet, hence no interference by RFCs and IANA, and hence by paying ISOC platinum/golden sponsors in languages and cultures. This means that control of cultural expression in coherence with search engines (as prepared by Mark Davis' RFCs) had to be abandoned by Vint Cerf. Google may have to quote domain names that they do not know how to resolve without also having to respect local, cultural, national naming standards and UTF8 resolution processes. Men are not Google peripherals. A patch was found that permitted a consensus to be reached: the necessary preparation (and mapping) of UTF8 entries will be made on the user side. This was not a big practical issue for Unicode since their Members already distribute users' applications and libraries all over the place. Moreover, Google Public DNS received publicity at that time: the size of Google's own DNS service is such that they can become a de facto operational reference. Example: If they introduce ".google" (or any other TLD) they will go through; Vint Cerf has already played that game when he adopted a new ".biz" against the existing one. However, IDNA2008 cannot work (except in some default situations) in the way most believe it can, i.e. as documented by the IDNA concepts. IDNA2003 was specified on the Internet and on the user's side. There is a major need to standardize IDNA2008 on the user's side as well, with a non-IDNA (IDN in application) user side achietcture. IAB has documented a few good reasons as to why that is in a soon to be published RFC. The only existing proposition is ML-DNS. As a precaution, I asked everyone(WG, AD, IESG, and IAB) if they wanted to take over its investigation and documentation. I am now left with the hot potatoes. IAB will only further discuss the problem... 4. Present situation ICANN owns the IANA and the root system. Google has the power to influence the IANA and the root file and replace the root system in many people's lives. IUsers do not need any of them, and the possibilities open to them are very large. However, there is a need for experimentation first (what we investigate with an Intertest project using the Internet as its own test-bed (as proposed by ICANN in its ICP-3 document). Everyone wants stability + something contradictory with the others. ICANN wants to retain control of naming; Google wants to retain control of information processing. IUsers object to control except for in identificative naming (vs. designative and appellative), but they would like for it to be nationally controlled. 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 kichango at gmail.com Thu Sep 9 21:08:13 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 21:08:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN Nominating Committee selection results In-Reply-To: <2FD7C5A6-870F-442A-8090-254B9E7DC876@marzouki.info> References: <4C86B705.80208@gih.com> <4C892664.1080303@gmx.net> <2FD7C5A6-870F-442A-8090-254B9E7DC876@marzouki.info> Message-ID: For some reasons, that '-rine' [rin] at the end of the name has a feminine ring to my ears, too (all puns intended ;-)) and I would have some preference for the idea that the person is a lady. But hey, whatever your gender Cherine Chalaby, congratulations and good luck! Chapeau aussi à toi Bertrand pour ton engagement, ton énergie et tes sacrifices vis-à-vis toutes choses politique de l'Internet! Mawaki On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > Le 9 sept. 10 à 20:24, Norbert Klein a écrit : > > On 09/10/2010 12:42 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: >> >>> >>> happy to see Cherine Chalaby from Egypt to be the first from the Arab >>> World as an ICANN Board Member wishing her all the succcess in her new >>> position. >>> >> >> Not her - him, >> >> :-) >> >> Also in Cambodia, we do not know the gender from the name... >> > > In Arabic, we normally do. I would also have said Cherine was a she. In > Arab (and Farsi as well: Shirin Ebadi, Iranian Nobel Peace prize 2003, who > was CS representative at WSIS opening ceremony in 2005 in Tunis), Cherine, > Sherine, Chirine, Cyrine, Syrine, Shirin and all other variations. are > women names, including in Egypt. > But if Cherine Chalaby is a man, then so be it.. this wont help gender > balance at ICANN;) > > 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 gurstein at gmail.com Thu Sep 9 21:14:00 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 18:14:00 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the Empowered or In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <67C5D65CD5B24E10AF170D9E227BACBE@userPC> I should mention that this parallels some very interesting interventions on the blogpost differentiating between data supply (and a number of related issues such as the one's that Paul is pointing to below) and data demand/use which is what my original blogpost was primarily addressing. BTW, since there seems some interest here on the original blog folks might be interested in a follow-on to it incorporating some of the very interesting comments and suggestions by Paul and others... http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/open-data-2-effective-data-use/ Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 7:44 PM To: Eric Dierker Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; Rui Correia Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the Empowered or On 9/8/10, Eric Dierker wrote: > I think we know that as for WHOIS data and Name Transferring Policies > and gTLD selection none of the above is a priority or requirement for > ICANN. So I assume > you are saying that ICANNs' data is unreliable, untrustworthy and bordering > on > completely bad? Under the three necessary parts of Transparency (information), Knowledge (analysis), and Remedies (empowered action based on analyzed knowledge), if we accept Eric's factual assiessment on all three, especially on the lack of transparency in the very first step, does it mean that ICANN's data is unreliable, untrustworthy and bordering on completely bad? ANSWER: You're proposing a meta-analysis of ICANN data, which presumes at least partial transparency exists, yet it is not fully transparent. Unless the partially transparent data set you are suggesting a critique for is able to be isolated reliably from the non-disclosed data (thus making it effectively transparent for the limited purpose of its own analysis), the non-disclosed data casts a big shadow over what is disclosed, because that data could change the meaning, context or even the results of using the limited data that was disclosed. Step Two (knowledge/analysis) is primarily the independent right or duty of each user of a given piece of data, except to the extent that a disclosing organization can make data more user-friendly without prejudice to other ways of analyzing the data that is fine (for example, it might be thought that producing a pdf is user friendly transparency, but if the pdf is of data originally in an excel spreadsheet then producing a pdf is making analysis more difficult). Also a disclosing organization may and sometimes must provide its own analysis of the data which should also be transparent, but not without also disclosing the data so that others can independently do their own analysis and come to their own conclusions. ICANN's nontransparency raises serious questions about the reliability of partial data that is released. Whether I can pronounce it "bad" without resort to more facts than those in this thread? No, not without more facts and analysis (which I'm sure exist, but not in this thread) Paul Lehto, J.D. > ________________________________ > From: Paul Lehto > To: Eric Dierker > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein ; > Rui Correia > Sent: Tue, September 7, 2010 12:42:27 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the > Empowered or > > On 9/7/10, Eric Dierker wrote: >> No matter what: Marketing is education and education is marketing. >> Knowledge and >> wisdom come from discerning what something teaches us. It does not come >> from >> deciding if it is true or reliable. Data must be taken in context just >> like >> the >> words we use. If you learn something from a free advertisement, one can >> only >> hope you have the intelligence to know that you did not just learn exactly >> what >> the ad said, but rather something about the product or service that is >> helpful >> to making informed decisions. "juicy fruit" is neither it is a gum. But >> we >> learn from the ad and marketing that juicy and fruit are what the sellers >> want >> us to think about their product --- so do we buy it because it is a juicy >> piece >> of fruit -- no,, but because we like the jingle and it was displayed well >> -- we >> know that. >> >> Please get off the notion of protecting us from ourselves. > > OK Eric, you are showing that you are smart enough to distinguish an > advertising message from the truth of the matter. This is the > distinction that I'm pointing to, and you yourself demonstrate an > application of it. That being said, there are much more subtle and > difficult applications of the principle when the data is not in the > form of an obvious jingle, but is, for example, economic data provided > by a government as supposedly objective data, or corporate economic > forecasts that can emanate from cooked books. I stipulate that you > are also aware of risks there, but this is a topic for legitimate > public education, and you were not born knowing these things. > Therefore I do not agree that people are 'stupid' if they need to > either be taught these things or reminded of them. Nor is it fair to > say this is "protecting us from ourselves", instead it is enabling > each individual to think for themselves and to question sources of > data and/or authority, because "open" data does not necessarily mean > accurate and truthful data, nor does open data mean that our hard won > knowledge is something we can actually do something about, because we > may lack realistic remedies. Effectiveness comes in three parts: > > 1. Transparency (gaining information, as in a clean, transparent > windshield allowing us to see) > > 2 . Knowledge (good analysis of the data obtained via some form of > transparency - a subject for ongoing education) > > 3. Remedies (ability to apply knowledge in an effective way via the > courts or publicity or other means in order to alter the external > environment in a beneficial way) > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > >> ________________________________ >> From: Paul Lehto >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein >> Cc: Rui Correia >> Sent: Fri, September 3, 2010 9:25:58 AM >> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the >> Empowered or >> >> "Open data" is a public good, but unless it is "open and honest" >> data, the public is in effect being manipulated rather than >> manipulating honest data. I'm inclined to support open data but with >> a major caveat. >> >> Hard won data and knowledge, such as professional knowledge, IP, >> etc., tends to be hoarded on the stated grounds of recovering >> investment & profiting from innovation. If it is initially protected >> data/knowledge and then liberated to be open, it is more likely >> reliable or honest data or knowledge. When it is provided for free >> in the first place, since most data has at least a nominal cost and >> some of the best data is hard to come by, it raises the question of >> whether open data is open and honest data. >> >> Advertising is always free to us, and the advertising industry stands >> as a trillion dollar proof of the eagerness to provide us with free, >> open data in order to manipulate us in the direction of the data >> provider's will. >> >> Paul Lehto, J.D. >> >> On 9/3/10, Michael Gurstein wrote: >>> Sorry Rui, the context is the on-going and extremely interesting >>> discussion around "open data" (follow the links below... >>> >>> Several of those involved in this list are also involved in issues >>> around "open data/knowledge" although I'm not really sure there is a >>> direct connection to Internet Governance. >>> >>> "The open data movement in >>> the area of access to public (and other) information is a relatively >>> new but very significant, and potentially powerful, emerging force. >>> It has now been widely endorsed by among others >>> >> html> Tim Berners-Lee the Father of the Internet. The overall >>> html> intention >>> is >>> to make local, regional and national data (and particularly publicly >>> acquired data) available in a form that allows for direct >>> manipulation using software tools as for example, for the purposes >>> of cross-tabulation, visualization, mapping and so on." >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 7:17 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein >>> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Blogpost: Open Data: Empowering the >>> Empowered or >>> >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> What exactly do you mean by data and access to data? >>> >>> Rui >>> >>> >>> On 3 September 2010 14:46, Michael Gurstein >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Perhaps a wee bit off topic, but there may be an interest. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> Efforts to extend access to "data" will perhaps inevitably create a >>> "data divide" parallel to the oft-discussed "digital divide" between >>> those who have access to data which could have significance in their >>> daily lives and those who don't. Associated with this will one can >>> assume, be many of the same background conditions which have been >>> identified as likely reasons for >>> the digital divide-that is differences in income, education, literacy and >>> so >>> on. However, just as with the "digital divide", these divisions don't >>> simply stop or be resolved with the provision of digital (or data) >>> "access". >>> What is necessary as well, is that those for whom access is being >>> provided >>> are in a position to actually make use of the now available access (to >>> the >>> Internet or to data) in ways that are meaningful and beneficial for them. >>> >>> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/open-data-empowering-the-em >>> powered- >>> >> -%0Aor-effective-data-use-for-everyone/> >>> or-effective-data-use-for-everyone/ >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> _________________________ >>> >>> Rui Correia >>> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison >>> Consultant 2 Cutten St >>> Horison >>> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >>> South Africa >>> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >>> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >>> _______________ >>> àáâãçéêíóôõúç >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > > -- > 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 -- 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 ceo at bnnrc.net Fri Sep 10 01:57:02 2010 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:57:02 +0600 Subject: [governance] Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication @5th IGF 2010 Vilnius, Lithuania References: <4C86B705.80208@gih.com> Message-ID: Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication @ 5th IGF 2010 Vilnius, Lithuania Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication will join the IGF in Vilnius, Lithuania, on 14-17 September, 2010, along with Bangladesh Head of Delegation H.E. Mr. Hasanul haq Inu, MP and Chairman Parliamentary Standing Committee for Ministry of Post and Telecommunication and Deputy Head of Delegation H.E. Dr. Akram H. Chowdhury, MP Chairperson, Centre for e-parliament Research and Member, Parliamentary Standing Committee for Ministry Food and Disaster. Delegation Members: Mr. M.A Haque Anu, Secretary General - Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum and Dr. Faheem Hossain, Assistant Professor, Asian University for Women and Member - Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum, Mr. AHM Bazlur Rahman-S21BR, Chief Executive Officer of Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication and member of Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum. Bangladesh Delegation hotel address is: Ecotel Vilnius, Slucko str.8, 09312 Vilnius, LT, and Tel.: +37052102705 Fax: +37052102707 Mob: +37069820241 E-mail.: violeta at ibc.lt 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 10 02:38:43 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:38:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Nominating Committee selection results In-Reply-To: References: <4C86B705.80208@gih.com> <4C892664.1080303@gmx.net> <2FD7C5A6-870F-442A-8090-254B9E7DC876@marzouki.info> Message-ID: <1284100723.1884.246.camel@anriette-laptop> Congratulations Bertrand.. but you will be missed very much as the French government representative in the CSTD and in other intergovernmental spaces. Your contributions have been bold, creative, progressive and civil society friendly. Thanks for your efforts.. and I hope you are able to play a similar role in ICANN. Anriette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Sep 10 02:48:57 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:48:57 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] Results of poll on IGF opening and closing speakers References: <2E42BC2D-0876-4447-8C6C-BCA79CF3B2CB@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070DB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi everybody, hi Ginger and Jeremy this is perfect. And it positions the IGC as a key voice of civil society in IG in a right way among the other main stakeholders. If you go to the list of speakers in both the opening and closing ceremony the indirect message is: The IGC is THE CS/IG platform. I recommend both to Ginger and Jeremy to give one or two paragraphs to the history of the IGC so that new people in the IGF community understand where the IGC comes from, what it is and what the role could be in the future. Best wishes wolfgang ________________________________ Fra: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sendt: to 09-09-2010 03:24 Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org Emne: [governance] Results of poll on IGF opening and closing speakers The results are as follows.. 128 responses were received, 117 in full and the balance in part (ie. only one of the two questions), from 463 invitations sent. This is a response rate of 27.6%, which is reasonable by IGC standards, bearing in mind that some people are subscribed twice or more under different addresses, and that we have some lurkers, eg. from the IGF Secretariat, who do not participate in the IGC's consensus decision-making. I'll take the results question by question. On the first question, there was a clear enough view that Ginger and I, as the IGC coordinators, should take the opening and closing slots; this was also the only choice supported by more than half the respondents. Parminder and Wolfgang were next most common choices. Karen Banks and Valeria Betancourt were the women who received the most support, though with less than one third of respondents for either of them. Therefore I will be recommending to the IGF Secretariat that Ginger and I speak. If they do not agree with this, then I will suggest that Parminder and Valeria speak (although Karen received equal support, Valeria pips Karen on geographical diversity - sorry Karen). Here are the percentage breakdowns for the first question (sorry, this may look bad if your email program doesn't support HTML): Which four names should be put forward as civil society speakers? Answer Count Percentage Fouad Bajwa (a) 33 25.78% Fatimata Seye Sylla (b) 28 21.88% Valeria Betancourt (c) 36 28.12% Wolfgang Kleinwachter (d) 55 42.97% Parminder Jeet Singh (e) 64 50.00% Co-coordinators (Jeremy Malcolm and Ginger Paque) (f) 75 58.59% Karen Banks (g) 36 28.12% Ben Akoh (h) 17 13.28% Katitza Rodriguez (i) 32 25.00% Marilia Maciel (available for opening only) (j) 33 25.78% On the second question, the most popular answer was "Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance". There are five other answers that were also clearly more popular than the others: the development dimension of IG, the retention of the IGF's core characteristics, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the desirability of improving inclusion and participation, and the desirability that the IGF continue to evolve and innovate. Leaving aside "Other", there were only three questions that received support from less than a third of respondents: congratulating the IGF on its successes, the gender dimension and the role of dynamic coalitions. So leaving these aside, all of the available choices of theme were quite popular. Here is the complete breakdown of responses to the second question: What are the top five themes to suggest the speakers address in their presentations? Answer Count Percentage Congratulating the IGF (on the completion of its first term, its innovative structure, etc.) (a) 32 25.00% Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Internet (b) 65 50.78% Development dimension of Internet governance (c) 70 54.69% Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance (d) 78 60..94% Retention of IGF's core characteristics (multistakeholderism, openness, consultative program shaping processes) (e) 68 53.12% Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, within its non-binding mandate (f) 54 42.19% Gender dimension of Internet governance (g) 16 12.50% Desirability of improving inclusion and participation (including remote participation) at the IGF (h) 57 44.53% Role of dynamic coalitions (i) 24 18.75% Non-negotiated outputs such as "messages from" or "recommendations at" the IGF (j) 37 28.91% Other 10 7.81% Of the ten "Other" responses, four link in with other available answers: * Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, with a modified mandate to give its outputs more weight [an extended version of answer (f)] * An articulated, hierarchical scheme for producing consensus "messages" or "recommendations" [an extended version of answer (j)] * Consideration of a more serious role in global net gov policymaking, building on first 5 years of talk shop [an extension of answers (f) and (j)] * All of these are obviously important... hopefully we can work all of the ideas in - e.g. combine those around IGF characteristics, enhanced cooperation and continuation of IGF [links answers (a) to (j). The other six are more or less novel: * ICANN review and IANA contract * Increased involvement of developing country participants in shaping the agenda of the IGF, greater role for regional and national meetings in shaping the IGF rather than the MAG * Network neutrality, privacy and communication freedom over the Internet * Importance of an open and accessible Internet * A Review Report (from CS) on MAG Responsibilities vs Accountability w.r.t. UNSG mandate (which global issues resolved or what challenges handled by IGF MAG at Global Challenges for Internet Global Level) * Free Software - Free Knowledge So, it appears likely that Ginger and I will speak, and that we will focus on the themes that received the greatest support - whilst trying to at least touch on most of them. Ginger has offered to speak first, and will cover "involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation process". Graphs of these results are available on our Web site at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/37. The exact results of "who voted for what" will also be put online in due course. If you want to see them now, I can send you the raw data files and you can pore through them at your leisure. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 ocl at gih.com Fri Sep 10 02:59:04 2010 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:59:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Internet_Society_event_invitation_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=96_29/09/2010?= Message-ID: <4C89D738.6030008@gih.com> Hello everyone, please find enclosed below, an invite from the English Chapter of the Internet Society. We are organising this event in London at the end of the month. It includes a free lunch and top class speakers, so I look forward to see you there! Kindest regards, Olivier Crépin-Leblond - ISOC England Lead Team. --- cut here --- Dear Sir/Madam, I would like to invite you to the upcoming Internet Society (ISOC) event – INET London – on *Wednesday 29^th September* at The Park Lane Hotel in London. The full agenda is on: http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/inet/10/london.shtml The theme of the event is *The Internet revolution: Opportunities, threats and challenges to your business – ignore it at your peril! *It is free for your attendance, and we will provide lunch and refreshments. *Who will be attending? *C-level executives of UK businesses, policy makers, academics and Internet stakeholders. * * The Internet is the primary cornerstone for business and communication today. In order to continue being a trusted, mission critical platform, the Internet must be seen and proven to be secure, reliable and private. We will consider ‘network confidence’, and exactly what this means for your business, and the future success of the Internet. As well as keynote presentations on the challenges and opportunities facing UK businesses; security issues; and the business impact of IPv6, we will be having two panel discussions. / / Speakers confirmed so far include (among others) *David Smith, Deputy Information Commissioner; Piotr Cofta, Chief Researcher at BT; William Dutton, Oxford Internet Institute; Jim Killock, Open Rights Group; Georgina Prodhan, Reuters; and the day will be moderated by James Bellini, presenter*. / / *Previous INET events* INET London is the 11^th in a series of worldwide INET events, from Cape Town to Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong to Washington, DC, over 18 months. * * Please register your attendance today and we will be in touch shortly to discuss this invitation further with you. (registration is on: http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/inet/10/london.shtml ) Kind regards, Claire Mallet (on behalf of The Internet Society) Claire.Mallet (at) metia.com --- cut here --- -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Fri Sep 10 03:04:53 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:04:53 +0300 Subject: SV: [governance] Results of poll on IGF opening and closing speakers In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070DB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2E42BC2D-0876-4447-8C6C-BCA79CF3B2CB@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070DB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <80E8F17A-4965-4DAD-BF98-545C6CAF91BE@acm.org> Hi, Just a quick point. In putting the names in the Opening and Closing ceremony as we did, we were in no way declaring that IGC was the CS/IG platform. We were simply listing the association of the speakers. a. On 10 Sep 2010, at 09:48, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Hi everybody, hi Ginger and Jeremy > > this is perfect. And it positions the IGC as a key voice of civil society in IG in a right way among the other main stakeholders. If you go to the list of speakers in both the opening and closing ceremony the indirect message is: The IGC is THE CS/IG platform. > > I recommend both to Ginger and Jeremy to give one or two paragraphs to the history of the IGC so that new people in the IGF community understand where the IGC comes from, what it is and what the role could be in the future. > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Fra: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] > Sendt: to 09-09-2010 03:24 > Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Emne: [governance] Results of poll on IGF opening and closing speakers > > > The results are as follows.. 128 responses were received, 117 in full and the balance in part (ie. only one of the two questions), from 463 invitations sent. This is a response rate of 27.6%, which is reasonable by IGC standards, bearing in mind that some people are subscribed twice or more under different addresses, and that we have some lurkers, eg. from the IGF Secretariat, who do not participate in the IGC's consensus decision-making. > > I'll take the results question by question. On the first question, there was a clear enough view that Ginger and I, as the IGC coordinators, should take the opening and closing slots; this was also the only choice supported by more than half the respondents. Parminder and Wolfgang were next most common choices. Karen Banks and Valeria Betancourt were the women who received the most support, though with less than one third of respondents for either of them. > > Therefore I will be recommending to the IGF Secretariat that Ginger and I speak. If they do not agree with this, then I will suggest that Parminder and Valeria speak (although Karen received equal support, Valeria pips Karen on geographical diversity - sorry Karen). > > Here are the percentage breakdowns for the first question (sorry, this may look bad if your email program doesn't support HTML): > > Which four names should be put forward as civil society speakers? > Answer Count Percentage > Fouad Bajwa (a) 33 25.78% > Fatimata Seye Sylla (b) 28 21.88% > Valeria Betancourt (c) 36 28.12% > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (d) 55 42.97% > Parminder Jeet Singh (e) 64 50.00% > Co-coordinators (Jeremy Malcolm and Ginger Paque) (f) 75 58.59% > Karen Banks (g) 36 28.12% > Ben Akoh (h) 17 13.28% > Katitza Rodriguez (i) 32 25.00% > Marilia Maciel (available for opening only) (j) 33 25.78% > > > On the second question, the most popular answer was "Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance". There are five other answers that were also clearly more popular than the others: the development dimension of IG, the retention of the IGF's core characteristics, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the desirability of improving inclusion and participation, and the desirability that the IGF continue to evolve and innovate. > > > Leaving aside "Other", there were only three questions that received support from less than a third of respondents: congratulating the IGF on its successes, the gender dimension and the role of dynamic coalitions. So leaving these aside, all of the available choices of theme were quite popular. > > > Here is the complete breakdown of responses to the second question: > > > What are the top five themes to suggest the speakers address in their presentations? > Answer Count Percentage > Congratulating the IGF (on the completion of its first term, its innovative structure, etc.) (a) 32 25.00% > Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Internet (b) 65 50.78% > Development dimension of Internet governance (c) 70 54.69% > Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance (d) 78 60..94% > Retention of IGF's core characteristics (multistakeholderism, openness, consultative program shaping processes) (e) 68 53.12% > Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, within its non-binding mandate (f) 54 42.19% > Gender dimension of Internet governance (g) 16 12.50% > Desirability of improving inclusion and participation (including remote participation) at the IGF (h) 57 44.53% > Role of dynamic coalitions (i) 24 18.75% > Non-negotiated outputs such as "messages from" or "recommendations at" the IGF (j) 37 28.91% > Other 10 7.81% > > Of the ten "Other" responses, four link in with other available answers: > > > * Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, with a modified mandate to give its outputs more weight [an extended version of answer (f)] > * An articulated, hierarchical scheme for producing consensus "messages" or "recommendations" [an extended version of answer (j)] > * Consideration of a more serious role in global net gov policymaking, building on first 5 years of talk shop [an extension of answers (f) and (j)] > * All of these are obviously important... hopefully we can work all of the ideas in - e.g. combine those around IGF characteristics, enhanced cooperation and continuation of IGF [links answers (a) to (j). > > > The other six are more or less novel: > > > * ICANN review and IANA contract > * Increased involvement of developing country participants in shaping the agenda of the IGF, greater role for regional and national meetings in shaping the IGF rather than the MAG > * Network neutrality, privacy and communication freedom over the Internet > * Importance of an open and accessible Internet > * A Review Report (from CS) on MAG Responsibilities vs Accountability w.r.t. UNSG mandate (which global issues resolved or what challenges handled by IGF MAG at Global Challenges for Internet Global Level) > * Free Software - Free Knowledge > > > So, it appears likely that Ginger and I will speak, and that we will focus on the themes that received the greatest support - whilst trying to at least touch on most of them. Ginger has offered to speak first, and will cover "involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation process". > > Graphs of these results are available on our Web site at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/37. The exact results of "who voted for what" will also be put online in due course. If you want to see them now, I can send you the raw data files and you can pore through them at your leisure. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > CI is 50 > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Fri Sep 10 04:10:44 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 04:10:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Remote participation for IGF 2010: individuals and In-Reply-To: References: <4C866743.3060601@gmail.com> <4C868524.8000102@paque.net> <4C86CF6A.90707@paque.net> Message-ID: We may want to consider a Jabber or XMPP Client which, due to its open nature, can integrate with other popular "brand name" Jabber clients that users may use/be familar with anyways such as GTalk, Trillian or iChat. There are also quite a few Mobile and Web clients which promote greater access. Rgds, Tracy On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Dear Ginger / Jeremy > > IRC is OK, but not everyone finds it friendly, for one reason or another. > I looked for opensource chat software and found one or two that can be > embedded in the IGF website or in a new collaborative portal. > > One interesting web application that I found is phpfreechat which can be > easily integrated into Joomla. There are other possible options. > > I tested it by installing it within my website and this is what it installs > well. > > This is a test installation in an available webspace: > http://turiya.co.in/ign/ > > We can have one chat interface such as this with > multiple, multilingual rooms + a forum/discussion space, a document editing > interface etc... > > Sivasubramanian M > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Great resource, thanks Jeremy. I used to use IRC, but not lately. I will >> give it another try. >> >> Shiva, perhaps you would like to take charge of this, as it is a large, >> separate project. >> >> For the moment, if anyone wants to join the Skype remote moderators' >> conversation that we already have implemented, please send me your Skype ID >> by private email, and I will add you. >> >> Shiva, we will watch for your suggestions. Thanks so much!!! >> >> Best, Ginger >> >> On 9/7/2010 7:00 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> On 08-Sep-2010, at 2:32 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> Does anyone else have a solution/technique they use or suggest to >> implement this communication? >> >> >> Yes, IRC (Internet Relay Chat), the oldest but still most widely-used >> Internet chat protocol, and - unlike Skype - an open, non-proprietary >> standard. >> >> The official IGF IRC channel is #igf on the Freenode network (ie. >> chat.freenode.net). Language-specific channels #igf-fr, #igf-es etc. also >> exist, and anyone can request the administrator (me) to set up channels with >> special features such as moderation. >> >> Free IRC clients are available for every computing platform (just search >> Google), and a Web based interface is also available at >> http://igf-online.net/chat.php. >> >> This facility has been available since 2007, but there are usually only a >> small group of us online. This year I'd like to see many more, so please >> join in! You'll find it a much more pleasant alternative to Skype. >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > 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 Fri Sep 10 04:19:56 2010 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:19:56 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] Results of poll on IGF opening and closing speakers In-Reply-To: <80E8F17A-4965-4DAD-BF98-545C6CAF91BE@acm.org> References: <2E42BC2D-0876-4447-8C6C-BCA79CF3B2CB@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070DB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <80E8F17A-4965-4DAD-BF98-545C6CAF91BE@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi all, Wolfgang's point was not the intentions, if any, of the secretariat, but the message this listing sends to anyone who reads it. And indeed, the message is that CS as a coalition - and not a given CS organization, neither an individual - is speaking through the voice of representatives (in their capacity of coordinators) of this coalition, namely the IGC. A long awaited sign, since the end of WSIS. There's still a long way, but a first step is always welcomed. This poll, also regarding the main issues of concern, was a great idea, and the answer rate was fair enough, given the configuration of the IGC mailing list. Actually, the poll result is not what one could have inferred from simply reading the various preferences sent to the list, at least without any questioning. This means that such polls, when fairly conducted like this one was (also in the question regarding issues), allow for more people to have their voice included, and heard, given the current status of the list, as well as the usual flaws inherent to such kind of conversations. BTW, it would be even better to list Ginger's and Jeremey's affiliation in full, that is: "Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus", and not simply "Internet Governance Caucus". Best, Meryem Le 10 sept. 10 à 09:04, Avri Doria a écrit : > > Just a quick point. > > In putting the names in the Opening and Closing ceremony as we did, > we were in no way declaring that IGC was the CS/IG platform. We > were simply listing the association of the speakers. > > a. > > On 10 Sep 2010, at 09:48, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> Hi everybody, hi Ginger and Jeremy >> >> this is perfect. And it positions the IGC as a key voice of civil >> society in IG in a right way among the other main stakeholders. If >> you go to the list of speakers in both the opening and closing >> ceremony the indirect message is: The IGC is THE CS/IG platform. >> >> I recommend both to Ginger and Jeremy to give one or two >> paragraphs to the history of the IGC so that new people in the >> IGF community understand where the IGC comes from, what it is and >> what the role could be in the future. >> >> Best wishes >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Fra: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] >> Sendt: to 09-09-2010 03:24 >> Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Emne: [governance] Results of poll on IGF opening and closing >> speakers >> >> >> The results are as follows.. 128 responses were received, 117 in >> full and the balance in part (ie. only one of the two questions), >> from 463 invitations sent. This is a response rate of 27.6%, >> which is reasonable by IGC standards, bearing in mind that some >> people are subscribed twice or more under different addresses, and >> that we have some lurkers, eg. from the IGF Secretariat, who do >> not participate in the IGC's consensus decision-making. >> >> I'll take the results question by question. On the first >> question, there was a clear enough view that Ginger and I, as the >> IGC coordinators, should take the opening and closing slots; this >> was also the only choice supported by more than half the >> respondents. Parminder and Wolfgang were next most common >> choices. Karen Banks and Valeria Betancourt were the women who >> received the most support, though with less than one third of >> respondents for either of them. >> >> Therefore I will be recommending to the IGF Secretariat that >> Ginger and I speak. If they do not agree with this, then I will >> suggest that Parminder and Valeria speak (although Karen received >> equal support, Valeria pips Karen on geographical diversity - >> sorry Karen). >> >> Here are the percentage breakdowns for the first question (sorry, >> this may look bad if your email program doesn't support HTML): >> >> Which four names should be put forward as civil society speakers? >> Answer Count Percentage >> Fouad Bajwa (a) 33 25.78% >> Fatimata Seye Sylla (b) 28 21.88% >> Valeria Betancourt (c) 36 28.12% >> Wolfgang Kleinwachter (d) 55 42.97% >> Parminder Jeet Singh (e) 64 50.00% >> Co-coordinators (Jeremy Malcolm and Ginger Paque) (f) 75 58.59% >> Karen Banks (g) 36 28.12% >> Ben Akoh (h) 17 13.28% >> Katitza Rodriguez (i) 32 25.00% >> Marilia Maciel (available for opening only) (j) 33 25.78% >> >> >> On the second question, the most popular answer was "Involvement >> of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet >> governance". There are five other answers that were also clearly >> more popular than the others: the development dimension of IG, the >> retention of the IGF's core characteristics, the Universal >> Declaration of Human Rights, and the desirability of improving >> inclusion and participation, and the desirability that the IGF >> continue to evolve and innovate. >> >> >> Leaving aside "Other", there were only three questions that >> received support from less than a third of respondents: >> congratulating the IGF on its successes, the gender dimension and >> the role of dynamic coalitions. So leaving these aside, all of >> the available choices of theme were quite popular. >> >> >> Here is the complete breakdown of responses to the second question: >> >> >> What are the top five themes to suggest the speakers address in >> their presentations? >> Answer Count Percentage >> Congratulating the IGF (on the completion of its first term, its >> innovative structure, etc.) (a) 32 25.00% >> Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Internet (b) 65 >> 50.78% >> Development dimension of Internet governance (c) 70 54.69% >> Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for >> Internet governance (d) 78 60..94% >> Retention of IGF's core characteristics (multistakeholderism, >> openness, consultative program shaping processes) (e) 68 53.12% >> Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as >> necessary, within its non-binding mandate (f) 54 42.19% >> Gender dimension of Internet governance (g) 16 12.50% >> Desirability of improving inclusion and participation (including >> remote participation) at the IGF (h) 57 44.53% >> Role of dynamic coalitions (i) 24 18.75% >> Non-negotiated outputs such as "messages from" or "recommendations >> at" the IGF (j) 37 28.91% >> Other 10 7.81% >> >> Of the ten "Other" responses, four link in with other available >> answers: >> >> >> * Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as >> necessary, with a modified mandate to give its outputs more weight >> [an extended version of answer (f)] >> * An articulated, hierarchical scheme for producing consensus >> "messages" or "recommendations" [an extended version of answer (j)] >> * Consideration of a more serious role in global net gov >> policymaking, building on first 5 years of talk shop [an extension >> of answers (f) and (j)] >> * All of these are obviously important... hopefully we can work >> all of the ideas in - e.g. combine those around IGF >> characteristics, enhanced cooperation and continuation of IGF >> [links answers (a) to (j). >> >> >> The other six are more or less novel: >> >> >> * ICANN review and IANA contract >> * Increased involvement of developing country participants in >> shaping the agenda of the IGF, greater role for regional and >> national meetings in shaping the IGF rather than the MAG >> * Network neutrality, privacy and communication freedom over the >> Internet >> * Importance of an open and accessible Internet >> * A Review Report (from CS) on MAG Responsibilities vs >> Accountability w.r.t. UNSG mandate (which global issues resolved >> or what challenges handled by IGF MAG at Global Challenges for >> Internet Global Level) >> * Free Software - Free Knowledge >> >> >> So, it appears likely that Ginger and I will speak, and that we >> will focus on the themes that received the greatest support - >> whilst trying to at least touch on most of them. Ginger has >> offered to speak first, and will cover "involvement of civil >> society in enhanced cooperation process". >> >> Graphs of these results are available on our Web site at http:// >> www.igcaucus.org/node/37. The exact results of "who voted for >> what" will also be put online in due course. If you want to see >> them now, I can send you the raw data files and you can pore >> through them at your leisure. >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >> Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> CI is 50 >> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer >> movement in 2010. >> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect >> consumer rights around the world. >> http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 > www.consumersinternational.org/50> >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 10 07:26:35 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 06:56:35 -0430 Subject: SV: [governance] Results of poll on IGF opening and closing speakers In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070DB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2E42BC2D-0876-4447-8C6C-BCA79CF3B2CB@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070DB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4C8A15EB.8070801@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 kichango at gmail.com Fri Sep 10 08:00:11 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:00:11 -0400 Subject: SV: [governance] Results of poll on IGF opening and closing speakers In-Reply-To: <4C8A15EB.8070801@paque.net> References: <2E42BC2D-0876-4447-8C6C-BCA79CF3B2CB@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070DB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4C8A15EB.8070801@paque.net> Message-ID: Ginger: I seem to remember Wolfy posting a refresher here a while ago with a wealth of information about this coalition's genesis (I'd say within the last 12 to 24 months, but I wouldn't bet on my time memory about this). I hope the subject line was explicit and specific enough for you to spot it if your search his posts to this list, plus maybe one or two other related keywords. Mawaki On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Wolfgang: > I think this is an excellent idea, and appropriate especially in the > opening session. However, I am having a hard time finding the 'history of > the IGC', although I did find a link to the original page. ( > http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/Civil_Society_Internet_Governance_Caucus) > > Can anyone give us a summary, data, facts or links to IGC history? Test > your memories! > > thanks! Ginger > > On 9/10/2010 2:18 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > Hi everybody, hi Ginger and Jeremy > > this is perfect. And it positions the IGC as a key voice of civil society in IG in a right way among the other main stakeholders. If you go to the list of speakers in both the opening and closing ceremony the indirect message is: The IGC is THE CS/IG platform. > > I recommend both to Ginger and Jeremy to give one or two paragraphs to the history of the IGC so that new people in the IGF community understand where the IGC comes from, what it is and what the role could be in the future. > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Fra: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org ] > Sendt: to 09-09-2010 03:24 > Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Emne: [governance] Results of poll on IGF opening and closing speakers > > > The results are as follows.. 128 responses were received, 117 in full and the balance in part (ie. only one of the two questions), from 463 invitations sent. This is a response rate of 27.6%, which is reasonable by IGC standards, bearing in mind that some people are subscribed twice or more under different addresses, and that we have some lurkers, eg. from the IGF Secretariat, who do not participate in the IGC's consensus decision-making. > > I'll take the results question by question. On the first question, there was a clear enough view that Ginger and I, as the IGC coordinators, should take the opening and closing slots; this was also the only choice supported by more than half the respondents. Parminder and Wolfgang were next most common choices. Karen Banks and Valeria Betancourt were the women who received the most support, though with less than one third of respondents for either of them. > > Therefore I will be recommending to the IGF Secretariat that Ginger and I speak. If they do not agree with this, then I will suggest that Parminder and Valeria speak (although Karen received equal support, Valeria pips Karen on geographical diversity - sorry Karen). > > Here are the percentage breakdowns for the first question (sorry, this may look bad if your email program doesn't support HTML): > > Which four names should be put forward as civil society speakers? > Answer Count Percentage > Fouad Bajwa (a) 33 25.78% > Fatimata Seye Sylla (b) 28 21.88% > Valeria Betancourt (c) 36 28.12% > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (d) 55 42.97% > Parminder Jeet Singh (e) 64 50.00% > Co-coordinators (Jeremy Malcolm and Ginger Paque) (f) 75 58.59% > Karen Banks (g) 36 28.12% > Ben Akoh (h) 17 13.28% > Katitza Rodriguez (i) 32 25.00% > Marilia Maciel (available for opening only) (j) 33 25.78% > > > On the second question, the most popular answer was "Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance". There are five other answers that were also clearly more popular than the others: the development dimension of IG, the retention of the IGF's core characteristics, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the desirability of improving inclusion and participation, and the desirability that the IGF continue to evolve and innovate. > > > Leaving aside "Other", there were only three questions that received support from less than a third of respondents: congratulating the IGF on its successes, the gender dimension and the role of dynamic coalitions. So leaving these aside, all of the available choices of theme were quite popular. > > > Here is the complete breakdown of responses to the second question: > > > What are the top five themes to suggest the speakers address in their presentations? > Answer Count Percentage > Congratulating the IGF (on the completion of its first term, its innovative structure, etc.) (a) 32 25.00% > Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Internet (b) 65 50.78% > Development dimension of Internet governance (c) 70 54.69% > Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance (d) 78 60..94% > Retention of IGF's core characteristics (multistakeholderism, openness, consultative program shaping processes) (e) 68 53.12% > Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, within its non-binding mandate (f) 54 42.19% > Gender dimension of Internet governance (g) 16 12.50% > Desirability of improving inclusion and participation (including remote participation) at the IGF (h) 57 44.53% > Role of dynamic coalitions (i) 24 18.75% > Non-negotiated outputs such as "messages from" or "recommendations at" the IGF (j) 37 28.91% > Other 10 7.81% > > Of the ten "Other" responses, four link in with other available answers: > > > * Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, with a modified mandate to give its outputs more weight [an extended version of answer (f)] > * An articulated, hierarchical scheme for producing consensus "messages" or "recommendations" [an extended version of answer (j)] > * Consideration of a more serious role in global net gov policymaking, building on first 5 years of talk shop [an extension of answers (f) and (j)] > * All of these are obviously important... hopefully we can work all of the ideas in - e.g. combine those around IGF characteristics, enhanced cooperation and continuation of IGF [links answers (a) to (j). > > > The other six are more or less novel: > > > * ICANN review and IANA contract > * Increased involvement of developing country participants in shaping the agenda of the IGF, greater role for regional and national meetings in shaping the IGF rather than the MAG > * Network neutrality, privacy and communication freedom over the Internet > * Importance of an open and accessible Internet > * A Review Report (from CS) on MAG Responsibilities vs Accountability w.r.t. UNSG mandate (which global issues resolved or what challenges handled by IGF MAG at Global Challenges for Internet Global Level) > * Free Software - Free Knowledge > > > So, it appears likely that Ginger and I will speak, and that we will focus on the themes that received the greatest support - whilst trying to at least touch on most of them. Ginger has offered to speak first, and will cover "involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation process". > > Graphs of these results are available on our Web site at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/37. The exact results of "who voted for what" will also be put online in due course. If you want to see them now, I can send you the raw data files and you can pore through them at your leisure. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > 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 Sep 10 08:58:36 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 05:58:36 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] Costa Rican Constitutional Court Declares Internet Fundamental Right Message-ID: <96D4638BE62246169B74239BD26F73C5@userPC> This is very interesting -- particularly the connection between access and the "enjoyment of other fundamental rights". Mike -----Original Message----- From: a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 6:54 PM To: a2k at lists.keionline.org Subject: [A2k] Costa Rican Constitutional Court Declares Internet Fundamental Right http://www.nacion.com/2010-09-08/ElPais/NotasSecundarias/ElPais2514038.aspx Automatic translation from Spanish to English via Google: The Constitutional Court declared the Internet access as a fundamental right of citizens. Furthermore, this Court ordered the State to promote and ensure universally (for all), the citizens' access to new technologies. "This ruling will force us to revise national plans of development of telecommunications, as currently there is no 100% goal of universality of access to these services," the minister said yesterday governing the area, Teofilo de la Torre . The ruling was delivered on 30 July when the Constitutional Court declared the place a writ of amparo against the leaders of the ICE, the Sutel and the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications (MINAET) for the delay in opening the cell. The protection was promoted by Juan Manuel Campos, an expert in regulation. The Court gave the government three months to realize competition in mobile telephony. The Board concluded that the "delay verified" at the opening of telecommunications, in addition to violating the right to a speedy implementation of the laws, has "affected the exercise and enjoyment of other fundamental rights." Among them, freedom of consumer choice, the right of access to new information technologies, equality and eradication of the digital divide and Internet access through the interface (middle) of your choice. George Miley, president of the Council of the Superintendency of Telecommunications (Sutel), explained that the delay in opening only applies to the mobile Internet as there is already competition in the country. Basic right. In the vote, reported Monday, the judges argue that at this time access to new technologies is a basic tool to facilitate the exercise of fundamental rights, democratic participation and citizen control, education, freedom of expression and of thought, among others. "Even, it has affirmed the fundamental right that covers the access to these technologies, in particular, the right to access to Internet or network of networks", says the Board in reference to a setencia the Constitutional Council of France, who scored a basic right to Internet access. On failure, Miguel Gonzalez, executive director of the Chamber of Infocommunication and Technology, said that coincide with the Board on the State's obligation to promote universality. "You can say that this resolution Costa Rica has consolidated its competition model with social inclusion," he added. The country has less than 50% Internet penetration, while cellular coverage is 80% of the country. This service allows access to the Internet. -- Sent from Ubuntu _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k at lists.keionline.org http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.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 Fri Sep 10 09:03:13 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 06:03:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGF Help is required Message-ID: <595211.23180.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Ginger, How are you? We need your support. A website hacking is reported today: URL: http://www.womenuniverse.com/ The contents are replaced by the hackers with some threatening messages to one country, that seems to me an action of the enemies of the both Countries, who want to create tension between Indo Pak. Now days when, we (the people of the both countries) are running campaign to resolve different issues with the title of "Aman ke Asha" (prayer and hope for the peace), this kind of activity may create differences. We need IGF help in this regard. Thanking you and Best Regards. Imran On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:26 PKT Ginger Paque wrote: >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Sep 10 09:07:07 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:07:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] APC's IGF2010 brief Message-ID: <1284124027.1884.1090.camel@anriette-laptop> Dear IGC We have tried to capture the APC community's priorities for the 2010 IGF in the attached. As always the comments from people in this space are helpful to us. Anriette ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For 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: IGF_2010_APC_briefEN.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 190213 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Sep 10 09:11:56 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:41:56 -0430 Subject: [governance] Page Hacked: Help is required - IGC colleagues, In-Reply-To: <595211.23180.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <595211.23180.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C8A2E9C.70909@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 gpaque at gmail.com Fri Sep 10 09:18:40 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:48:40 -0430 Subject: [governance] APC's IGF2010 brief (info on regional IGFs) In-Reply-To: <1284124027.1884.1090.camel@anriette-laptop> References: <1284124027.1884.1090.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: <4C8A3030.8090100@paque.net> Thanks, Anriette! In particular, there are summaries of three regional IGF meetings, pasted below, as there were requests for this information earlier. Annex 1 – Reports from Regional IGFs that were co-convened by the APC Latin America and the Caribbean The third Latin American and the Caribbean regional preparatory meeting for the IGF was held in Quito, Ecuador from 3-5 August, 2010. APC, LACNIC and the NUPEF Institute collaborated once again to offer a platform for the multi stakeholder policy dialogue, with the support of the Brazilian Steering Committee (CGI.br). Over 120 people from 25 countries attended the event. Debate was encouraged to identify regional priorities on access and diversity, internet critical resources, privacy, security, openness, internet governance for development, and emerging issues. Rapporteurs shared the main outputs with the audience, which are the basis for putting together a message from the LAC region to the IGF. The issue related to the need for the LAC region to build an internet governance agenda that responds to regional particularities and countries´priorities came out strongly. It would not prevent but contribute to enhancing the engagement of the LAC region in global processes like the IGF, the participation in other related internet governance institutions and, primarily, would establish linkages with national internet governance public policy priorities with the perspectives of developing countries. As the previous year, the importance of universal affordable broadband access was highlighted as a pre-condition for innovative and competitive environments that generates new types of revenue generating models that puts people and their rights in the centre. The need to broaden the approach to the access theme was stressed. Issues related to the commercial agreements with developed countries that determine the conditions to access to information and knowledge should be also addressed if the internet is meant to significantly impact on people´s lives. Similarly, regarding openness, it was proposed that a new system of intellectual property rights, appropriate for digital media in the context of developing countries, should be put in place to facilitate access to knowledge and information. There was general consensus around the importance of an open governance model for the internet which allows an active, effective, diversified and multi-stakeholder participation. The code of good practice on information, participation and transparency in internet governance was well received by different stakeholders as a tool to move towards an open governance model. The internet governance for development session focused on the need to build capacities for increasing the participation of developing countries in decision-making mechanisms and processes in global and regional fora. Additionally, the importance of addressing the economic, social, cultural and political impacts of the internet in societies was highlighted. Once again, the need to search for an adequate balance between security and privacy was raised, particularly in the fields of social networks, transparency and access to information. The importance of legal/regulatory harmonization and practices in the management of information was addressed. Some pointed out that cloud computing brings benefits in terms of virtual data capability, reduction of costs of hardware, and resource optimisation. However, it was also emphasized that risks of privacy violations increase. Regarding critical internet resources, participants indicated it is necessary to find participative and collaborative multi-stakeholder models for management of IP addresses at national levels with a view of public interest, balancing the participation of governments and private sector in order to ensure respect for citizen´s rights. On the security session, one of the most innovative proposals had to do with substituting the perspective of security for a realistic approach to risk administration. Finally, participants emphasized the importance of remote participation for the success of the global and regional IGFs. There was general agreement about the relevance of the IGF and the need for its continuation. 14http://intgovforum.org/cms/the-preparatory-process/512 A brief from APC on the Fifth Internet Governance Forum 7 East Africa The 3rd East African IGF was held in Kampala Uganda on 11-13 August. The theme for the 2010 meeting was “Strengthening East Africa’s Critical Internet Resources ”Thinking globally; Acting locally.” The regional IGF followed on a series of national IGFs in Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania and - for the first time since the regional and national IGFs started in East Africa – in Burundi. The East African Internet Governance forum is an annual conference within Eastern Africa that mainly focusses on internet governance issues of key importance to the East Africa Community (EAC) countries, all of which have national IGF processes. Representatives from each of the 5 countries reported on their national IGF processes and the outcomes of the national forums. This year, the critical issues discussed at national and regional levels included access to broadband and regional integration of networks, IPV6 migration, redelegation of ccTLDs (such as .KE and .UG), cyber security and privacy, as well as the need for regional internet exchange points. (As an illustration, someone in the meeting checked the routing of an email message from Uganda to Rwanda, and found that traffic meant for a neighbouring country was still going via the UK!). The dominant theme of the meeting centred on strengthening ccTLDs. One of the hotly debated issues was therefore the proposal – and request for support – from a conference participant for bid to acquire the dotAfrica top level domain name, focussing on the potential negative impact on the viability of the ccTLDs. The emerging themes at the 2010 discussion was the issue of harmonisation of ICT certification in the region, and related to that, youth and ICT entrepreneurship. Also discussed was the Code of Good Practice developed by the APC in partnership with the Council of Europe and the UN Economic Commission for Europe. Alice Munyua, the East African Internet Governance Forum convener announced that Kenya would host the next global IGF in September 2011, if the UN Assembly extends the IGF mandate.15 West Africa The third West African Internet Governance Forum (WA-IGF) was held in Dakar from August 23-25th 2010. The event was organised by a consortium made up of the Internet Society (ISOC) Senegal, Association for Progressive Communication (APC), AfriNIC, ECOWAS, Panos Institute West Africa (PIWA), Free and Open Source Software Foundation for Africa (FOSSFA), and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). It was supported by the Open Society Institute for West Africa (OSIWA). Over 200 participants and observers from 12 countries representing civil society, media, the private sector, government regulatory authorities, development partners and internet activists convened to deliberate on issues relating to internet governance (IG) issues in West Africa. Regarding access and diversity, participants agreed on the need for affordable broadband, and efficient network coverage of the entire West African territory. They also recommended creation of content that is useful, affordable, accessible and adapted to the needs and context of Africa. Discussions on Internet Governance for Development recommended sub level domain name protection, abolition of Internet Protocol (IP) blocking and also government ownership and relevant stakeholders engagement at an international level. On the issue of privacy and security, participants at the forum concurred that there was a need to implement a task force for defining a set of laws and rules about cyber security. Participants also recommended a need to propose policies and standards for personal and sensitive data protection to reduce the risks associated with openness. On managing critical Internet resources, two issues came out strongly and these are strong regional cooperation among member states in the region and at a regional level, working with key partners like FOSSFA, ECOWAS and working with ISPs and IXPs. Secondly, it was also acknowledged that data centres should be regionally managed to maximize West African resources and create cascading programs and best practices among member states. Participants acknowledged that there is need to embark on follow up discussions on the above mentioned issues and also agreed on the need to present these issues at the global IGF and perhaps incorporate these suggestions in the global IGF space. 15For detailed coverage on the EAIGF, see http://www.eaigf-uganda.blogspot.com A brief from APC on the Fifth Internet Governance Forum 8 On 9/10/2010 8:37 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear IGC > > We have tried to capture the APC community's priorities for the 2010 IGF > in the attached. > > As always the comments from people in this space are helpful to us. > > Anriette > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > anriette esterhuysen - executive director > association for progressive communications > p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 > anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 > http://www.apc.org > > APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org > Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! > ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! > Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 10 09:22:32 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:22:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] APC's IGF2010 brief In-Reply-To: <1284124027.1884.1090.camel@anriette-laptop> References: <1284124027.1884.1090.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: I personally think that an overarching framing like the following is useful both for understanding as well as for taking action in favor of human rights on the internet: There is no legitimate issue of "whether or not" governments have the "authority" to regulate the internet (except at the margins of extraterritoriality). The laws of contract and property are all over the internet, structuring its character to a great extent, and these are enforced in governmental courts. That, of course, is law, and it is law on and regarding the internet. Contract law is nothing less than private law. The real question is whether the internet in whole or in part will be subjected to a hands off or laissez faire government policy, or whether countries will pursue their duty to protect and expand human rights in all territories (including the internet) as they have agreed to do in the past, or whether they will abdicate their most solemn duty to secure the rights of citizens and residents within their respective territories. The most fundamental question is whether large multinational corporations will regulate the internet by contracts like terms of service and so forth, or whether the public will exercise its right and duty to act to protect public goods on the internet from more selfish private structurings via contract law by private parties. As always, two or more signatories to a contract may (within certain limits) define their relationship by contract and that may be an expression of freedom, but the limit to contract that is all too often transgressed (as with Google Verizon type deals) is when the contracts affect the rights and experiences of parties who have never signed or agreed to the contract, or (as with onerous terms of service) whose agreement is not meaningful because it is forced, or buried in fine print, etc. Paul Lehto, J.D. On 9/10/10, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear IGC > > We have tried to capture the APC community's priorities for the 2010 IGF > in the attached. > > As always the comments from people in this space are helpful to us. > > Anriette > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > anriette esterhuysen - executive director > association for progressive communications > p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 > anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 > http://www.apc.org > > APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org > Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! > ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! > Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ 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 ceo at bnnrc.net Fri Sep 10 09:22:40 2010 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:22:40 +0600 Subject: [governance] APC's IGF2010 brief References: <1284124027.1884.1090.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: <32645BE9697D40C49362657D71A95AA8@ceo> Dear Anriette, Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) Thank you very much for sharing APC's IGF2010 brief. Members of Bangladesh Delegation always endorsed APC's IGF position. Hope to see you during 5th IGF 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: "Anriette Esterhuysen" To: Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 7:07 PM Subject: [governance] APC's IGF2010 brief Dear IGC We have tried to capture the APC community's priorities for the 2010 IGF in the attached. As always the comments from people in this space are helpful to us. Anriette ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 10 09:40:56 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:10:56 -0430 Subject: [governance] Was: Results of poll on IGF opening and closing speakers In-Reply-To: References: <2E42BC2D-0876-4447-8C6C-BCA79CF3B2CB@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070DB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4C8A15EB.8070801@paque.net> Message-ID: <4C8A3568.8050502@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 kichango at gmail.com Fri Sep 10 10:05:35 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:05:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Was: Results of poll on IGF opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C8A3568.8050502@gmail.com> References: <2E42BC2D-0876-4447-8C6C-BCA79CF3B2CB@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070DB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4C8A15EB.8070801@paque.net> <4C8A3568.8050502@gmail.com> Message-ID: This following one in particular (more recent than I thought). If still relevant, please clarify what other data you need. You may also want to talk to YJ (likely still on this list) for complementary views/account if you think you need to. Mawaki 2010/8/1 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Hi Avri, Milton, Bill & Co. > > With regard to our Meissen discussion on the history of the IGF I found in > my archives two statements long before Tunis which I made on behalf of the > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus and where "forum function" and > "multistakeholderism" were key points. In the Paris Statement (July 2003) we > called it the "Global Information Society Observation Council" (GISOC). The > GISOC proposal more or less outlined functions which later reflected in the > Tunis mandate for the IGF. The more formal proposal from the CS was drafted > by Bill and me on behalf of the CS Internet Governance Caucus at PrepCom3 in > September 2003 in Geneva, long before the WGIG was created and proposed the > launch of the IGF. > > The whole IG discussion within WSIS was kick started during PrepCom2 in > June 2003 in Geneva when we had, inter alia, a Workshop "Civil Society and > WSIS" in the official programme of PrepCom2 organized (and moderated) by > Bertrand and me. (21 February, 10:00-13:00 - ILO building - Workshop lll: > CIVIL SOCIETY AND WSIS. see flyer >> 27 kB [English < > http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/pc2/inf/workshop/flyer3.doc> ] ). > http://www.itu.int/wsis/preparatory/prepcom/pc2/inf/index.html After the > workshop we moved to the ILO rerstaurant where we discussed the need to > establish an institutionalized platform which we called "CS Internet > Governance Caucus" (IGC). Originally, Internet Governance was not a main > issue in the WSIS. First priority for WSIS was bridging the digital divide, > however the ITU was very interested to bring the IG debate under the WSIS > umbrella as a counterplatform to ICANN, which as established in 1998 as an > alternative to ITU efforts to get the control over the DNS and the A Root > Server. > > The IG debate within WSIS was triggered by the the "Beirut Declaration" > (February 2003), the regional ministerial conference for West Asia which > includes the following paragraph "Securing national domain names: The > responsibility for root directories and domain names should rest with a > suitable international organization and should take multilingualism into > consideration. Countries' top-level-domain-names and Internet Protocol (IP) > address assignment should be the sovereign right of countries. The > sovereignty of each nation should be protected and respected. Internet > governance should be multilateral, democratic and transparent and should > take into account the needs of the public and private sectors as well as > those of the civil society." > > The rumor says that the ITU was not satisfied with the outcome of the other > four regional ministerial conferences, where Internet Governance was > sidelined. To get a "mandate" for IG, the Beirut conference was the last > chance for the ITU to include it into the WSIS agenda as a high priority > issue. I myself did not participate in the Beirut conference, but I was told > that YJ Pak from Korea made the relevant statement which then was reflected > in the "Beirut Declaration". If you compare the "Beirut Statenment" with the > "Paris/Geneva statements" you see a difference. Insofar - looking backwards > - it was not a surprise, that when YJ and I co-chaired the IGC in the first > WSIS phase until December 2003, we had some internal disputes and it was not > easy to reach consensus within the IGC from the very early day ;-(((. > However, the net result - seven years later - is that we avoided to bring > DNS etc. under an intergovernmental control/oversight mechanism and we were > able to launch a multistakeholder IGF. Nice history, isn´t it? > > Do other people have more documents in their archives? Probably it would > make sense to write a short history of the IGF. Too late for the UN GA in > 2010, but probably helpful for the forthcoming deeper IGF evalution forseen > for 2011. > > Wolfgang > > > > Here is the key part of the Paris statement > > " In a broader context of ICT policy making and global governance, we > invite the WSIS to consider launching a "Global > > Information Society Observation Council" which could serve as a meeting > point for improved coordination, consultation > > and communication on ICT issues. Such a "Council" should be composed of > representatives of governments, private > > industry and civil society. It could promote the exchange of information, > experiences and best practices on issues from > > privacy to free speech on the Internet, from IPR to eCommerce, from Ipv6 to > ENUM. Listening to the good experiences > > of others is a cheap investment and could become a source of inspiration > for innovative policy development in the 21st > > Century. We will provide the WSIS secretariat with a new proposed language > for the Items 33 and 44. > > > WSIS Interesessional, Paris, July 2003 > http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/pcip/plenary/internet_governance_group.pdf > > Here is another Statement I made a year later in the GFC meeting on > Multistakeholderism > > WSIS Group of the Friends of the Chair, Geneva, September 2004 > http://www.worldsummit2005.de/downloa > d_en/Speech-Geneva-2004-10-Kleinwaechter.pdf > > > Wolfgang > _____________ On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Mawaki, is this the post you were referring to? It is helpful, but more > data would be appreciated. Thanks to those who send info. > > On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:04 AM, Kleinwächter, *Wolfgang* wrote: > > Dear list > > I fully support Yrjös statement. There is a need that the *IGC* raises its > voice in this case. > > My observation is that this is part of a bigger story to move backwards, to > cancel openess, transparency and bottom up PDP and to withdraw from the > principle of "multistakeholderism". It is aimed to get the Internet policy > processes back under control of an intergovernmental regime and to silence > non-governmental stakeholders, at least if it comes to public policy issues > and decision making. > > This recognition of the principle of "multistaklehoderism" in the Tunis > Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS and was in > particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance in > contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) approach". The acceptance > of civil soceity as an "equal parter" (in their specific role) was a big > step for civil society. This was paved by the constructive and substantial > work the CS folks did during WSIS I and II, documented in particular in the > WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and > handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the > Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the xcontribution to the results of the > UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The launch of the IGF as a > "multistakehoder discussion platform" was the result of this. It emerged as > the only concrete result of the WSIS IGFF debate because governments were > unable to agree on "enhanced cooperation" (which in the understanding of > many delegates was aimed to exclude non-governmental stakeholders). > > However, many governments were not happy with this new IGF way of "sharing > power". I rememeber IGF consultations and MAG meetings in 2006 and 2007 > where governmental representatives were questioning the presence of > non-governmental stakeholders in the room. If you go to the transcripts of > these meetings then you will discover that - as an example - the Chinese > delegate never uses the word "multistakholderism" but always the term > "multilateral" when it comes to IG principles. "Multilateral" is indeed a > "used language" in the text of the Tunis Agenda (it comes from the Geneva > 2003 compromise which defined the mandate of the WGIG). But for > international lawyers it is very clear that the legal understanding of > "multilateral" is "intergovernmental". Parties in a "multilateral > convention" are only governments. > > The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which was first > (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception but was later taken for > granted (but never formalized). This was the "spirit of Geneva", it was not > the "spirit of New York". If you talk to UN people in New York they send you > to the moon of you raise "multistakehoderism" as basic approach to develop > global policies. No multistakholderism in the UN Security Council!!! The > so-called "Cardozo-Report", which investigated the role of NGOs in UN policy > development - once initiated by Kofi Annan - disappeared in the archives > and no single government in the UN General Assembly in New York was ready to > draft a resolution with a follow up. > > I do not know whether this is just a speculation but for some people the > planned move of the IGF Secretariat from Geneva to New York is driven also > by the political strategic aim to remove "multistakehoderism" from the > Internet policy process. The public arguments, used by some governments (and > unfortunately supported by some CS people) in favour of NY are: budget > security for the secretariat, closer link to UN leadership, higher > efficiency, formal outcomes. But the flip side of such a process is to > silence non-governmental stakeholders, and in particular civil society. Do > not buy this "efficiency" pill. This is very poisend. > > The argument the UNDESA rep gave in Geneva that ECOSOC has also hundreds of > "recognized NGOs" which allow consultations with non-governmental > stakeholders sounds like a joke. My organisation - the International > Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR), where I am an > elected member of the International Council and the liaison to ECOSOC - is > officially recognized by ECOSOC since the 1960s. But the only thing we can > do is to send written statements which are published before the meeting. You > can speculate how many ECOSOC reps read all these statements (sometimes > several hundred pages). You have no right to negotiate, you have no right to > speak, you have even no right to access the meeting room and to brief (or > lobby) delegates. > > With other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and > transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It > re-opens the door for intergovernmental horse-trading behind closed doors. > It is like in the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and private sector) were > removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions > ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten > PrepComs to change this. > > This new move to re-install a one-stakeholder approach is paralleled by the > planned WSIS Forum in Geneva in May 2010. This "WSIS Forum" is led by three > intergovernmental organisations (ITU, UNESCO & UNCTAD). During the recent > preparatory meeting in Geneva, there was no non-governmental stakeholder on > the podium. Houlin Zhao, ITU Deputy Secretary General, pointed to UNESCOs > relationship with NGOs and the involvement of the private sector in the ITU > when he was asked about his understanding of "multistakeholderism". > > During WSIS there was a Civil Society Bureau (and a CS Pleanry and a CS > Content&Themes Group) and a private Sector Office which talked officially > to the intergovernmental bureau. The non-governmental mechanisms - which > emerged as functioning units during the WSIS process - more or less > disappeared after Tunis 2005. The only remaining functioning of > "multistakholderism" was the IGF and the UNCSTD. And this is now also under > fire. > > I write this as a wake up call to the new generation of CS/IG leaders and > activists. If you discuss details of IG please do not forget the bigger > political environment. In many places you are not welcomed. What you need > beyond a good substantial IG agenda is also a clear political strategy to > find the places where you can make your substantial arguments. You have > permanently to reconsider your role and self-understanding in the micro AND > macro processes. And you have to look for partners, both among "friendly > governments" and private sector institutions, which are sitting - to a > certain degree - in this context in the same boat as CS. And please, stay > united. > > And this is not just for the IGF and the future PDP for Internet > Governance. There are now plans to have a 3rd World Summit on the > Information Society (WSIS III) in 2015, to evaluate the implementation of > the Tunis Agenda and to work towards a WSIS 2025 strategy. > > Once Jon Postel said: "There are so many things to do in this exciting > times we live in". This was in the 1980s. It is true also for the 2010s. > > Best wishes > > *Wolfgang* > > > > 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. > > On 9/10/2010 7:30 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Ginger: > I seem to remember Wolfy posting a refresher here a while ago with a wealth > of information about this coalition's genesis (I'd say within the last 12 to > 24 months, but I wouldn't bet on my time memory about this). I hope the > subject line was explicit and specific enough for you to spot it if your > search his posts to this list, plus maybe one or two other related keywords. > > Mawaki > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Wolfgang: >> I think this is an excellent idea, and appropriate especially in the >> opening session. However, I am having a hard time finding the 'history of >> the IGC', although I did find a link to the original page. ( >> http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/Civil_Society_Internet_Governance_Caucus) >> >> Can anyone give us a summary, data, facts or links to IGC history? Test >> your memories! >> >> thanks! Ginger >> >> On 9/10/2010 2:18 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> >> Hi everybody, hi Ginger and Jeremy >> >> this is perfect. And it positions the IGC as a key voice of civil society in IG in a right way among the other main stakeholders. If you go to the list of speakers in both the opening and closing ceremony the indirect message is: The IGC is THE CS/IG platform. >> >> I recommend both to Ginger and Jeremy to give one or two paragraphs to the history of the IGC so that new people in the IGF community understand where the IGC comes from, what it is and what the role could be in the future. >> >> Best wishes >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Fra: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org ] >> Sendt: to 09-09-2010 03:24 >> Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Emne: [governance] Results of poll on IGF opening and closing speakers >> >> >> The results are as follows.. 128 responses were received, 117 in full and the balance in part (ie. only one of the two questions), from 463 invitations sent. This is a response rate of 27.6%, which is reasonable by IGC standards, bearing in mind that some people are subscribed twice or more under different addresses, and that we have some lurkers, eg. from the IGF Secretariat, who do not participate in the IGC's consensus decision-making. >> >> I'll take the results question by question. On the first question, there was a clear enough view that Ginger and I, as the IGC coordinators, should take the opening and closing slots; this was also the only choice supported by more than half the respondents. Parminder and Wolfgang were next most common choices. Karen Banks and Valeria Betancourt were the women who received the most support, though with less than one third of respondents for either of them. >> >> Therefore I will be recommending to the IGF Secretariat that Ginger and I speak. If they do not agree with this, then I will suggest that Parminder and Valeria speak (although Karen received equal support, Valeria pips Karen on geographical diversity - sorry Karen). >> >> Here are the percentage breakdowns for the first question (sorry, this may look bad if your email program doesn't support HTML): >> >> Which four names should be put forward as civil society speakers? >> Answer Count Percentage >> Fouad Bajwa (a) 33 25.78% >> Fatimata Seye Sylla (b) 28 21.88% >> Valeria Betancourt (c) 36 28.12% >> Wolfgang Kleinwachter (d) 55 42.97% >> Parminder Jeet Singh (e) 64 50.00% >> Co-coordinators (Jeremy Malcolm and Ginger Paque) (f) 75 58.59% >> Karen Banks (g) 36 28.12% >> Ben Akoh (h) 17 13.28% >> Katitza Rodriguez (i) 32 25.00% >> Marilia Maciel (available for opening only) (j) 33 25.78% >> >> >> On the second question, the most popular answer was "Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance". There are five other answers that were also clearly more popular than the others: the development dimension of IG, the retention of the IGF's core characteristics, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the desirability of improving inclusion and participation, and the desirability that the IGF continue to evolve and innovate. >> >> >> Leaving aside "Other", there were only three questions that received support from less than a third of respondents: congratulating the IGF on its successes, the gender dimension and the role of dynamic coalitions. So leaving these aside, all of the available choices of theme were quite popular. >> >> >> Here is the complete breakdown of responses to the second question: >> >> >> What are the top five themes to suggest the speakers address in their presentations? >> Answer Count Percentage >> Congratulating the IGF (on the completion of its first term, its innovative structure, etc.) (a) 32 25.00% >> Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Internet (b) 65 50.78% >> Development dimension of Internet governance (c) 70 54.69% >> Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance (d) 78 60..94% >> Retention of IGF's core characteristics (multistakeholderism, openness, consultative program shaping processes) (e) 68 53.12% >> Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, within its non-binding mandate (f) 54 42.19% >> Gender dimension of Internet governance (g) 16 12.50% >> Desirability of improving inclusion and participation (including remote participation) at the IGF (h) 57 44.53% >> Role of dynamic coalitions (i) 24 18.75% >> Non-negotiated outputs such as "messages from" or "recommendations at" the IGF (j) 37 28.91% >> Other 10 7.81% >> >> Of the ten "Other" responses, four link in with other available answers: >> >> >> * Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, with a modified mandate to give its outputs more weight [an extended version of answer (f)] >> * An articulated, hierarchical scheme for producing consensus "messages" or "recommendations" [an extended version of answer (j)] >> * Consideration of a more serious role in global net gov policymaking, building on first 5 years of talk shop [an extension of answers (f) and (j)] >> * All of these are obviously important... hopefully we can work all of the ideas in - e.g. combine those around IGF characteristics, enhanced cooperation and continuation of IGF [links answers (a) to (j). >> >> >> The other six are more or less novel: >> >> >> * ICANN review and IANA contract >> * Increased involvement of developing country participants in shaping the agenda of the IGF, greater role for regional and national meetings in shaping the IGF rather than the MAG >> * Network neutrality, privacy and communication freedom over the Internet >> * Importance of an open and accessible Internet >> * A Review Report (from CS) on MAG Responsibilities vs Accountability w.r.t. UNSG mandate (which global issues resolved or what challenges handled by IGF MAG at Global Challenges for Internet Global Level) >> * Free Software - Free Knowledge >> >> >> So, it appears likely that Ginger and I will speak, and that we will focus on the themes that received the greatest support - whilst trying to at least touch on most of them. Ginger has offered to speak first, and will cover "involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation process". >> >> Graphs of these results are available on our Web site at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/37. The exact results of "who voted for what" will also be put online in due course. If you want to see them now, I can send you the raw data files and you can pore through them at your leisure. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> 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 chad at apc.org Fri Sep 10 10:13:22 2010 From: chad at apc.org (Chad Lubelsky) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:13:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF pre-event on human rights In-Reply-To: References: <1284124027.1884.1090.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: Hi everyone, As promised, attached is more information on the Human Rights pre- event being hosted by APC, IT for Change, Global Partners, the Centre for Internet & Society and the Internet Rights & Principles Coalition. We'll be in room 5 of the main venue from 2:00 - 5:30pm and it promises to be a lively discussion. Looking forward to seeing you there. Chad ---- Chad Lubelsky - Global networking, policy and advocacy coordinator Association for Progressive Communications Montreal, Canada chad at apc.org - +1 514 603 3382 --- APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF Human rights pre-event agenda.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 537914 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 10 10:16:42 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 23:16:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] Was: Results of poll on IGF opening and closing speakers In-Reply-To: <4C8A3568.8050502@gmail.com> References: <2E42BC2D-0876-4447-8C6C-BCA79CF3B2CB@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070DB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4C8A15EB.8070801@paque.net> <4C8A3568.8050502@gmail.com> Message-ID: I would like to echo with what Wolfgang wrote, as being heavily involved with the WSIS Geneva and Tunis preparation processes to push civil society participation into the decision making process of WSIS itself, and therefore, pushing "multi-stakeholder" principle, as the core principle of the Information society as a whole, no just for the Internet Governance, which is of course very important. In the early days of WSIS I prep com, civil society (and private sector and international organizations, too) are put into the very back seat physically, given limited time (30 min per day, mostly, 15 min eachin the beginning and end of a session), and only limited exception was allowed for some urgent moment. Yet, somehow, Civil society, under IGC and other caucuses effort, has gained more recognition, gradually, which led the Tunis declaration putting civil society in a official recognition, though "equal footing" was replaced at the last moment by "with respective roles and responsibilities" (or something like that). Then when WGIW was being formed, civil society again took strong initiative to forward nominations to the WGIG, and got 14 people there out of 40, more than one third of the members, which was a great surprise even for the civil society. AND, as WGIG made its work, many CS members contributed a lot, and that left very positive impression and understandings by the government members of the WGIG, as well as to the WSIS Tunis process which gave birth to IGF, again as multi-stakeholder body, almost first of its kind in UN history, somebody told me. I also agree with Wolfgang that moving the IGF secretariat to New York is very strategic, and trying to erase the multi-stakeholder working principle, the very core of IGF, together with the spirit. It's not physical question of NY or Geneva, but more sensitive matters behind, I believe. Or, it is more important to keep the multistakeholder principle, in the working mode, not just spirit, for the next IGF round, than just saying Geneva or New York. It is not just for the civil society (and core activists), but for the whole globe, as Internet is used by so many different stakeholders and no single sector can and should take control, it's the best and only way to make its governance efficient, effective and legitimate. As Wolfgang wrote about WSIS Forum by ITU, rotating in five (or more) regions of the globe sounds much better than moving to NY. Well, see you in Vilnius soon, for those who can travel to. I will leave Tokyo tomorrow morning, arrive at Vilnius Sunday afternoon. izumi 2010/9/10 Ginger Paque : > Mawaki, is this the post you were referring to? It is helpful, but more data > would be appreciated. Thanks to those who send info. > > On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:04 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > Dear list > > I fully support Yrjös statement. There is a need that the IGC raises its > voice in this case. > > My observation is that this is part of a bigger story to move backwards, to > cancel openess, transparency and bottom up PDP and to withdraw from the > principle of "multistakeholderism". It is aimed to get the Internet policy > processes back under control of an intergovernmental regime and to silence > non-governmental stakeholders, at least if it comes to public policy issues > and decision making. > > This recognition of the principle of "multistaklehoderism" in the Tunis > Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS and was in > particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance in > contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) approach". The acceptance > of civil soceity as an "equal parter" (in their specific role) was a big > step for civil society. This was paved by the constructive and substantial > work the CS folks did during WSIS I and II, documented in particular in the > WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and > handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the > Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the xcontribution to the results of the > UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG).  The launch of the IGF as a > "multistakehoder discussion platform" was the result of this. It emerged as > the only concrete result of the WSIS IGFF debate because governments were > unable to agree on "enhanced cooperation" (which in the understanding of > many delegates was aimed to exclude non-governmental stakeholders). > > However, many governments were not happy with this new IGF way of "sharing > power". I rememeber IGF consultations and MAG meetings in 2006 and 2007 > where governmental representatives were questioning the presence of > non-governmental stakeholders in the room. If you go to the transcripts of > these meetings then you will discover that - as an example - the Chinese > delegate never uses the word "multistakholderism" but always the term > "multilateral" when it comes to IG principles. "Multilateral" is indeed a > "used language" in the text of the Tunis Agenda (it comes from the Geneva > 2003 compromise which defined the mandate of the WGIG). But for > international lawyers it is very clear that the legal understanding of > "multilateral" is "intergovernmental". Parties in a "multilateral > convention" are only governments. > > The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which was first > (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception but was later taken for > granted (but never formalized). This was the "spirit of Geneva", it was not > the "spirit of New York". If you talk to UN people in New York they send you > to the moon of you raise "multistakehoderism" as basic approach to develop > global policies. No multistakholderism in the UN  Security Council!!! The > so-called "Cardozo-Report", which investigated the role of NGOs in UN policy > development - once initiated by Kofi  Annan - disappeared in the archives > and no single government in the UN General Assembly in New York was ready to > draft a resolution with a follow up. > > I do not know whether this is just a speculation but for some people the > planned move of the IGF Secretariat from Geneva to New York is driven also > by the political strategic aim to remove "multistakehoderism" from the > Internet policy process. The public arguments, used by some governments (and > unfortunately supported by some CS people) in favour of NY are: budget > security for the secretariat, closer link to UN leadership, higher > efficiency, formal outcomes. But the flip side of such a process is to > silence non-governmental stakeholders, and in particular civil society. Do > not buy this "efficiency" pill. This is very poisend. > > The argument the UNDESA rep gave in Geneva that ECOSOC has also hundreds of > "recognized NGOs" which allow consultations with non-governmental > stakeholders sounds like a joke. My organisation - the International > Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR), where I am an > elected member of the International Council and the liaison to ECOSOC - is > officially recognized by ECOSOC since the 1960s. But the only thing we can > do is to send written statements which are published before the meeting. You > can speculate how many ECOSOC reps read all these statements (sometimes > several hundred pages). You have no right to negotiate, you have no right to > speak, you have even no right to access the meeting room and to brief (or > lobby) delegates. > > With other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and > transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It > re-opens the door for intergovernmental horse-trading behind closed doors. > It is like in the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and private sector) were > removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions > ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten > PrepComs to change this. > > This new move to re-install a one-stakeholder approach is paralleled by the > planned WSIS Forum in Geneva in May 2010. This "WSIS Forum" is led by three > intergovernmental organisations (ITU, UNESCO & UNCTAD). During the recent > preparatory meeting in Geneva, there was no non-governmental stakeholder on > the podium. Houlin Zhao, ITU Deputy Secretary General, pointed to UNESCOs > relationship with NGOs and the involvement of the private sector in the ITU > when he was asked about his understanding of "multistakeholderism". > > During WSIS there was a Civil Society Bureau (and a CS Pleanry and a CS > Content&Themes Group)  and a private Sector Office which talked officially > to the intergovernmental bureau. The non-governmental mechanisms - which > emerged as functioning units during the WSIS process - more or less > disappeared after Tunis 2005. The only remaining functioning of > "multistakholderism" was the IGF and the UNCSTD. And this is now also under > fire. > > I write this as a wake up call to the new generation of CS/IG leaders and > activists. If you discuss details of IG please do not forget the bigger > political environment. In many places you are not welcomed. What you need > beyond a good substantial IG agenda is also a clear political strategy to > find the places where you can make your substantial arguments. You have > permanently to reconsider your role and self-understanding in the micro AND > macro processes. And you have to look for partners, both among "friendly > governments" and private sector institutions, which are sitting - to a > certain degree - in this context in the same boat as CS. And please, stay > united. > > And this is not just for the IGF and the future PDP for Internet Governance. > There are now plans to have a 3rd World Summit on the Information Society > (WSIS III) in 2015, to evaluate the implementation of the Tunis Agenda and > to work towards a WSIS 2025 strategy. > > Once Jon Postel said: "There are so many things to do in this exciting times > we live in". This was in the 1980s. It is true also for the 2010s. > > Best wishes > > Wolfgang > > 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. > On 9/10/2010 7:30 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Ginger: > I seem to remember Wolfy posting a refresher here a while ago with a wealth > of information about this coalition's genesis (I'd say within the last 12 to > 24 months, but I wouldn't bet on my time memory about this). I hope the > subject line was explicit and specific enough for you to spot it if your > search his posts to this list, plus maybe one or two other related keywords. > Mawaki > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> Wolfgang: >> I think this is an excellent idea, and appropriate especially in the >> opening session. However, I am having a hard time finding the 'history of >> the IGC', although I did find a link to the original page. >> (http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/Civil_Society_Internet_Governance_Caucus) >> >> Can anyone give us a summary, data, facts or links to IGC history? Test >> your memories! >> >> thanks! Ginger >> >> On 9/10/2010 2:18 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> >> Hi everybody, hi Ginger and Jeremy >> >> this is perfect. And it positions the IGC as a key voice of civil society >> in IG in a right way among the other main stakeholders. If you go to the >> list of speakers in both the opening and closing ceremony the indirect >> message is: The IGC is THE CS/IG platform. >> >> I recommend both to Ginger and Jeremy to give one or two paragraphs to the >> history of the IGC so that new people in the IGF community understand where >> the IGC comes from, what it is and what the role could be in the future. >> >> Best wishes >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Fra: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] >> Sendt: to 09-09-2010 03:24 >> Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Emne: [governance] Results of poll on IGF opening and closing speakers >> >> >> The results are as follows.. 128 responses were received, 117 in full and >> the balance in part (ie. only one of the two questions), from 463 >> invitations sent. This is a response rate of 27.6%, which is reasonable by >> IGC standards, bearing in mind that some people are subscribed twice or more >> under different addresses, and that we have some lurkers, eg. from the IGF >> Secretariat, who do not participate in the IGC's consensus decision-making. >> >> I'll take the results question by question. On the first question, there >> was a clear enough view that Ginger and I, as the IGC coordinators, should >> take the opening and closing slots; this was also the only choice supported >> by more than half the respondents. Parminder and Wolfgang were next most >> common choices. Karen Banks and Valeria Betancourt were the women who >> received the most support, though with less than one third of respondents >> for either of them. >> >> Therefore I will be recommending to the IGF Secretariat that Ginger and I >> speak. If they do not agree with this, then I will suggest that Parminder >> and Valeria speak (although Karen received equal support, Valeria pips Karen >> on geographical diversity - sorry Karen). >> >> Here are the percentage breakdowns for the first question (sorry, this may >> look bad if your email program doesn't support HTML): >> >> Which four names should be put forward as civil society speakers? >> Answer Count Percentage >> Fouad Bajwa (a) 33 25.78% >> Fatimata Seye Sylla (b) 28 21.88% >> Valeria Betancourt (c) 36 28.12% >> Wolfgang Kleinwachter (d) 55 42.97% >> Parminder Jeet Singh (e) 64 50.00% >> Co-coordinators (Jeremy Malcolm and Ginger Paque) (f) 75 58.59% >> Karen Banks (g) 36 28.12% >> Ben Akoh (h) 17 13.28% >> Katitza Rodriguez (i) 32 25.00% >> Marilia Maciel (available for opening only) (j) 33 25.78% >> >> >> On the second question, the most popular answer was "Involvement of civil >> society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance". There are >> five other answers that were also clearly more popular than the others: the >> development dimension of IG, the retention of the IGF's core >> characteristics, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the >> desirability of improving inclusion and participation, and the desirability >> that the IGF continue to evolve and innovate. >> >> >> Leaving aside "Other", there were only three questions that received >> support from less than a third of respondents: congratulating the IGF on its >> successes, the gender dimension and the role of dynamic coalitions. So >> leaving these aside, all of the available choices of theme were quite >> popular. >> >> >> Here is the complete breakdown of responses to the second question: >> >> >> What are the top five themes to suggest the speakers address in their >> presentations? >> Answer Count Percentage >> Congratulating the IGF (on the completion of its first term, its >> innovative structure, etc.) (a) 32 25.00% >> Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Internet (b) 65 50.78% >> Development dimension of Internet governance (c) 70 54.69% >> Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet >> governance (d) 78 60..94% >> Retention of IGF's core characteristics (multistakeholderism, openness, >> consultative program shaping processes) (e) 68 53.12% >> Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, within >> its non-binding mandate (f) 54 42.19% >> Gender dimension of Internet governance (g) 16 12.50% >> Desirability of improving inclusion and participation (including remote >> participation) at the IGF (h) 57 44.53% >> Role of dynamic coalitions (i) 24 18.75% >> Non-negotiated outputs such as "messages from" or "recommendations at" the >> IGF (j) 37 28.91% >> Other 10 7.81% >> >> Of the ten "Other" responses, four link in with other available answers: >> >> >> * Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, with >> a modified mandate to give its outputs more weight [an extended version of >> answer (f)] >> * An articulated, hierarchical scheme for producing consensus "messages" >> or "recommendations" [an extended version of answer (j)] >> * Consideration of a more serious role in global net gov policymaking, >> building on first 5 years of talk shop [an extension of answers (f) and (j)] >> * All of these are obviously important... hopefully we can work all of the >> ideas in - e.g. combine those around IGF characteristics, enhanced >> cooperation and continuation of IGF [links answers (a) to (j). >> >> >> The other six are more or less novel: >> >> >> * ICANN review and IANA contract >> * Increased involvement of developing country participants in shaping the >> agenda of the IGF, greater role for regional and national meetings in >> shaping the IGF rather than the MAG >> * Network neutrality, privacy and communication freedom over the Internet >> * Importance of an open and accessible Internet >> * A Review Report (from CS) on MAG Responsibilities vs Accountability >> w.r.t. UNSG mandate (which global issues resolved or what challenges handled >> by IGF MAG at Global Challenges for Internet Global Level) >> * Free Software - Free Knowledge >> >> >> So, it appears likely that Ginger and I will speak, and that we will focus >> on the themes that received the greatest support - whilst trying to at least >> touch on most of them. Ginger has offered to speak first, and will cover >> "involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation process". >> >> Graphs of these results are available on our Web site at >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/37. The exact results of "who voted for what" >> will also be put online in due course. If you want to see them now, I can >> send you the raw data files and you can pore through them at your leisure. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 b.schombe at gmail.com Fri Sep 10 11:01:23 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:01:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] Was: Results of poll on IGF opening and closing speakers In-Reply-To: <4C8A3568.8050502@gmail.com> References: <2E42BC2D-0876-4447-8C6C-BCA79CF3B2CB@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070DB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4C8A15EB.8070801@paque.net> <4C8A3568.8050502@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello dear all, I support the arguments of Wolf, adding that if the WSIS I and II have been successful, in large part with the private sector and civil society. Discredit these actors, this means that we discredited the work that was done during the two phases of the World Summit on the Information Society. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN 2010/9/10 Ginger Paque > Mawaki, is this the post you were referring to? It is helpful, but more > data would be appreciated. Thanks to those who send info. > > On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:04 AM, Kleinwächter, *Wolfgang* wrote: > > Dear list > > I fully support Yrjös statement. There is a need that the *IGC* raises its > voice in this case. > > My observation is that this is part of a bigger story to move backwards, to > cancel openess, transparency and bottom up PDP and to withdraw from the > principle of "multistakeholderism". It is aimed to get the Internet policy > processes back under control of an intergovernmental regime and to silence > non-governmental stakeholders, at least if it comes to public policy issues > and decision making. > > This recognition of the principle of "multistaklehoderism" in the Tunis > Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS and was in > particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance in > contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) approach". The acceptance > of civil soceity as an "equal parter" (in their specific role) was a big > step for civil society. This was paved by the constructive and substantial > work the CS folks did during WSIS I and II, documented in particular in the > WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and > handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the > Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the xcontribution to the results of the > UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The launch of the IGF as a > "multistakehoder discussion platform" was the result of this. It emerged as > the only concrete result of the WSIS IGFF debate because governments were > unable to agree on "enhanced cooperation" (which in the understanding of > many delegates was aimed to exclude non-governmental stakeholders). > > However, many governments were not happy with this new IGF way of "sharing > power". I rememeber IGF consultations and MAG meetings in 2006 and 2007 > where governmental representatives were questioning the presence of > non-governmental stakeholders in the room. If you go to the transcripts of > these meetings then you will discover that - as an example - the Chinese > delegate never uses the word "multistakholderism" but always the term > "multilateral" when it comes to IG principles. "Multilateral" is indeed a > "used language" in the text of the Tunis Agenda (it comes from the Geneva > 2003 compromise which defined the mandate of the WGIG). But for > international lawyers it is very clear that the legal understanding of > "multilateral" is "intergovernmental". Parties in a "multilateral > convention" are only governments. > > The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which was first > (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception but was later taken for > granted (but never formalized). This was the "spirit of Geneva", it was not > the "spirit of New York". If you talk to UN people in New York they send you > to the moon of you raise "multistakehoderism" as basic approach to develop > global policies. No multistakholderism in the UN Security Council!!! The > so-called "Cardozo-Report", which investigated the role of NGOs in UN policy > development - once initiated by Kofi Annan - disappeared in the archives > and no single government in the UN General Assembly in New York was ready to > draft a resolution with a follow up. > > I do not know whether this is just a speculation but for some people the > planned move of the IGF Secretariat from Geneva to New York is driven also > by the political strategic aim to remove "multistakehoderism" from the > Internet policy process. The public arguments, used by some governments (and > unfortunately supported by some CS people) in favour of NY are: budget > security for the secretariat, closer link to UN leadership, higher > efficiency, formal outcomes. But the flip side of such a process is to > silence non-governmental stakeholders, and in particular civil society. Do > not buy this "efficiency" pill. This is very poisend. > > The argument the UNDESA rep gave in Geneva that ECOSOC has also hundreds of > "recognized NGOs" which allow consultations with non-governmental > stakeholders sounds like a joke. My organisation - the International > Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR), where I am an > elected member of the International Council and the liaison to ECOSOC - is > officially recognized by ECOSOC since the 1960s. But the only thing we can > do is to send written statements which are published before the meeting. You > can speculate how many ECOSOC reps read all these statements (sometimes > several hundred pages). You have no right to negotiate, you have no right to > speak, you have even no right to access the meeting room and to brief (or > lobby) delegates. > > With other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and > transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It > re-opens the door for intergovernmental horse-trading behind closed doors. > It is like in the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and private sector) were > removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions > ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten > PrepComs to change this. > > This new move to re-install a one-stakeholder approach is paralleled by the > planned WSIS Forum in Geneva in May 2010. This "WSIS Forum" is led by three > intergovernmental organisations (ITU, UNESCO & UNCTAD). During the recent > preparatory meeting in Geneva, there was no non-governmental stakeholder on > the podium. Houlin Zhao, ITU Deputy Secretary General, pointed to UNESCOs > relationship with NGOs and the involvement of the private sector in the ITU > when he was asked about his understanding of "multistakeholderism". > > During WSIS there was a Civil Society Bureau (and a CS Pleanry and a CS > Content&Themes Group) and a private Sector Office which talked officially > to the intergovernmental bureau. The non-governmental mechanisms - which > emerged as functioning units during the WSIS process - more or less > disappeared after Tunis 2005. The only remaining functioning of > "multistakholderism" was the IGF and the UNCSTD. And this is now also under > fire. > > I write this as a wake up call to the new generation of CS/IG leaders and > activists. If you discuss details of IG please do not forget the bigger > political environment. In many places you are not welcomed. What you need > beyond a good substantial IG agenda is also a clear political strategy to > find the places where you can make your substantial arguments. You have > permanently to reconsider your role and self-understanding in the micro AND > macro processes. And you have to look for partners, both among "friendly > governments" and private sector institutions, which are sitting - to a > certain degree - in this context in the same boat as CS. And please, stay > united. > > And this is not just for the IGF and the future PDP for Internet > Governance. There are now plans to have a 3rd World Summit on the > Information Society (WSIS III) in 2015, to evaluate the implementation of > the Tunis Agenda and to work towards a WSIS 2025 strategy. > > Once Jon Postel said: "There are so many things to do in this exciting > times we live in". This was in the 1980s. It is true also for the 2010s. > > Best wishes > > *Wolfgang* > > > > 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. > > On 9/10/2010 7:30 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Ginger: > I seem to remember Wolfy posting a refresher here a while ago with a wealth > of information about this coalition's genesis (I'd say within the last 12 to > 24 months, but I wouldn't bet on my time memory about this). I hope the > subject line was explicit and specific enough for you to spot it if your > search his posts to this list, plus maybe one or two other related keywords. > > Mawaki > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Wolfgang: >> I think this is an excellent idea, and appropriate especially in the >> opening session. However, I am having a hard time finding the 'history of >> the IGC', although I did find a link to the original page. ( >> http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/Civil_Society_Internet_Governance_Caucus) >> >> Can anyone give us a summary, data, facts or links to IGC history? Test >> your memories! >> >> thanks! Ginger >> >> On 9/10/2010 2:18 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> >> Hi everybody, hi Ginger and Jeremy >> >> this is perfect. And it positions the IGC as a key voice of civil society in IG in a right way among the other main stakeholders. If you go to the list of speakers in both the opening and closing ceremony the indirect message is: The IGC is THE CS/IG platform. >> >> I recommend both to Ginger and Jeremy to give one or two paragraphs to the history of the IGC so that new people in the IGF community understand where the IGC comes from, what it is and what the role could be in the future. >> >> Best wishes >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Fra: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org ] >> Sendt: to 09-09-2010 03:24 >> Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Emne: [governance] Results of poll on IGF opening and closing speakers >> >> >> The results are as follows.. 128 responses were received, 117 in full and the balance in part (ie. only one of the two questions), from 463 invitations sent. This is a response rate of 27.6%, which is reasonable by IGC standards, bearing in mind that some people are subscribed twice or more under different addresses, and that we have some lurkers, eg. from the IGF Secretariat, who do not participate in the IGC's consensus decision-making. >> >> I'll take the results question by question. On the first question, there was a clear enough view that Ginger and I, as the IGC coordinators, should take the opening and closing slots; this was also the only choice supported by more than half the respondents. Parminder and Wolfgang were next most common choices. Karen Banks and Valeria Betancourt were the women who received the most support, though with less than one third of respondents for either of them. >> >> Therefore I will be recommending to the IGF Secretariat that Ginger and I speak. If they do not agree with this, then I will suggest that Parminder and Valeria speak (although Karen received equal support, Valeria pips Karen on geographical diversity - sorry Karen). >> >> Here are the percentage breakdowns for the first question (sorry, this may look bad if your email program doesn't support HTML): >> >> Which four names should be put forward as civil society speakers? >> Answer Count Percentage >> Fouad Bajwa (a) 33 25.78% >> Fatimata Seye Sylla (b) 28 21.88% >> Valeria Betancourt (c) 36 28.12% >> Wolfgang Kleinwachter (d) 55 42.97% >> Parminder Jeet Singh (e) 64 50.00% >> Co-coordinators (Jeremy Malcolm and Ginger Paque) (f) 75 58.59% >> Karen Banks (g) 36 28.12% >> Ben Akoh (h) 17 13.28% >> Katitza Rodriguez (i) 32 25.00% >> Marilia Maciel (available for opening only) (j) 33 25.78% >> >> >> On the second question, the most popular answer was "Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance". There are five other answers that were also clearly more popular than the others: the development dimension of IG, the retention of the IGF's core characteristics, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the desirability of improving inclusion and participation, and the desirability that the IGF continue to evolve and innovate. >> >> >> Leaving aside "Other", there were only three questions that received support from less than a third of respondents: congratulating the IGF on its successes, the gender dimension and the role of dynamic coalitions. So leaving these aside, all of the available choices of theme were quite popular. >> >> >> Here is the complete breakdown of responses to the second question: >> >> >> What are the top five themes to suggest the speakers address in their presentations? >> Answer Count Percentage >> Congratulating the IGF (on the completion of its first term, its innovative structure, etc.) (a) 32 25.00% >> Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Internet (b) 65 50.78% >> Development dimension of Internet governance (c) 70 54.69% >> Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance (d) 78 60..94% >> Retention of IGF's core characteristics (multistakeholderism, openness, consultative program shaping processes) (e) 68 53.12% >> Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, within its non-binding mandate (f) 54 42.19% >> Gender dimension of Internet governance (g) 16 12.50% >> Desirability of improving inclusion and participation (including remote participation) at the IGF (h) 57 44.53% >> Role of dynamic coalitions (i) 24 18.75% >> Non-negotiated outputs such as "messages from" or "recommendations at" the IGF (j) 37 28.91% >> Other 10 7.81% >> >> Of the ten "Other" responses, four link in with other available answers: >> >> >> * Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, with a modified mandate to give its outputs more weight [an extended version of answer (f)] >> * An articulated, hierarchical scheme for producing consensus "messages" or "recommendations" [an extended version of answer (j)] >> * Consideration of a more serious role in global net gov policymaking, building on first 5 years of talk shop [an extension of answers (f) and (j)] >> * All of these are obviously important... hopefully we can work all of the ideas in - e.g. combine those around IGF characteristics, enhanced cooperation and continuation of IGF [links answers (a) to (j). >> >> >> The other six are more or less novel: >> >> >> * ICANN review and IANA contract >> * Increased involvement of developing country participants in shaping the agenda of the IGF, greater role for regional and national meetings in shaping the IGF rather than the MAG >> * Network neutrality, privacy and communication freedom over the Internet >> * Importance of an open and accessible Internet >> * A Review Report (from CS) on MAG Responsibilities vs Accountability w.r.t. UNSG mandate (which global issues resolved or what challenges handled by IGF MAG at Global Challenges for Internet Global Level) >> * Free Software - Free Knowledge >> >> >> So, it appears likely that Ginger and I will speak, and that we will focus on the themes that received the greatest support - whilst trying to at least touch on most of them. Ginger has offered to speak first, and will cover "involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation process". >> >> Graphs of these results are available on our Web site at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/37. The exact results of "who voted for what" will also be put online in due course. If you want to see them now, I can send you the raw data files and you can pore through them at your leisure. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > 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 Fri Sep 10 11:11:02 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:11:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] Results of poll and the two IGF speeches Message-ID: Dear Jeremy, dear all, I think the co-coordinators make perfect sense. and the poll method has been very useful as a thermometer. Regarding the topics, some suggestions : - I suggest that when drafting the speeches, you u*se the ranking of the various themes* not as indication of some been kept and others dropped but rather *as an indication of the length of the paragraphs that should be devoted to each* : all issues are worth mentioning and the fact that gender for instance only has 12 % does not prevent from making a short paragraph about it (because it is indeed important); having two speeches allows to cover most ground - it would probably be interesting to focus t*he opening on the more substantive topics* (UDHR, and most of the "novel ones", even if IANA or net neutrality are not completely new) in order to produce food for thought for the rest of the week. As you've often heard me say, the best way to get consensus in the IGC and to have a positive impact in the discussions is to focus on the framing of each problem and fundamental principles rather than advocating for a specific solution (as in many cases CS is not of a uniform voice). Ginger would probably be best for the opening - the *closing session could focus more on procedural issues *and looking forward at the future of the IGF (continuation, "improvements"), the need to preserve certain fundamental operational principles and more generally the role of the different stakeholders, in particular civil society in the upcoming enhanced cooperation discussions. Given his keen interest in those topics, I suppose Jeremy would be the most suited to it. It also leaves some time during the IGF to polish the positionning (on site and online) and take into account some of the comments and discussions that will take place. Please do not forget to include the item "congratulating the IGF" along possible recommendations for change. Even if there is ample room for improvement, this is still a fragile experiment that deserves some protection and has established (as wolfgang rightly highlighted) a pattern of interaction unavailable anywhere else. I hope this helps and trusts that we'll have a good IGF. Looking forward to seeing many of you soon. Best Bertrand On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > The results are as follows. 128 responses were received, 117 in full and > the balance in part (ie. only one of the two questions), from 463 > invitations sent. This is a response rate of 27.6%, which is reasonable by > IGC standards, bearing in mind that some people are subscribed twice or more > under different addresses, and that we have some lurkers, eg. from the IGF > Secretariat, who do not participate in the IGC's consensus decision-making. > > I'll take the results question by question. On the first question, there > was a clear enough view that Ginger and I, as the IGC coordinators, should > take the opening and closing slots; this was also the only choice supported > by more than half the respondents. Parminder and Wolfgang were next most > common choices. Karen Banks and Valeria Betancourt were the women who > received the most support, though with less than one third of respondents > for either of them. > > Therefore I will be recommending to the IGF Secretariat that Ginger and I > speak. If they do not agree with this, then I will suggest that Parminder > and Valeria speak (although Karen received equal support, Valeria pips Karen > on geographical diversity - sorry Karen). > > Here are the percentage breakdowns for the first question (sorry, this may > look bad if your email program doesn't support HTML): > > *Which four names should be put forward as civil society speakers? * * > Answer* *Count* *Percentage* Fouad Bajwa (a) 3325.78% Fatimata Seye > Sylla (b) 2821.88% Valeria Betancourt (c) 3628.12% Wolfgang > Kleinwachter (d) 5542.97% Parminder Jeet Singh (e) 6450.00% Co-coordinators > (Jeremy Malcolm and Ginger Paque) (f) 75 58.59% Karen Banks (g) 3628.12% > Ben Akoh (h) 1713.28% Katitza Rodriguez (i) 3225.00% Marilia Maciel > (available for opening only) (j) 33 25.78% > On the second question, the most popular answer was "Involvement of civil > society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance". There are > five other answers that were also clearly more popular than the others: the > development dimension of IG, the retention of the IGF's core > characteristics, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the > desirability of improving inclusion and participation, and the desirability > that the IGF continue to evolve and innovate. > > Leaving aside "Other", there were only three questions that received > support from less than a third of respondents: congratulating the IGF on its > successes, the gender dimension and the role of dynamic coalitions. So > leaving these aside, all of the available choices of theme were quite > popular. > > Here is the complete breakdown of responses to the second question: > > *What are the top five themes to suggest the speakers address in their > presentations? * *Answer* *Count* *Percentage* Congratulating the IGF (on > the completion of its first term, its innovative structure, etc.) (a) 3225.00% Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and the Internet (b) 65 50.78% Development > dimension of Internet governance (c) 70 54.69% Involvement of civil > society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance (d) 7860.94% Retention > of IGF's core characteristics (multistakeholderism, openness, consultative > program shaping processes) (e) 68 53.12% Desirability that IGF continue > to evolve and innovate as necessary, within its non-binding mandate (f) 5442.19% Gender > dimension of Internet governance (g) 1612.50% Desirability of improving > inclusion and participation (including remote participation) at the IGF (h) > 57 44.53% Role of dynamic coalitions (i) 2418.75% Non-negotiated > outputs such as "messages from" or "recommendations at" the IGF (j) 3728.91% > Other 107.81% > > Of the ten "Other" responses, four link in with other available answers: > > > - Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, > with a modified mandate to give its outputs more weight [an extended version > of answer (f)] > - An articulated, hierarchical scheme for producing consensus > "messages" or "recommendations" [an extended version of answer (j)] > - Consideration of a more serious role in global net gov policymaking, > building on first 5 years of talk shop [an extension of answers (f) and (j)] > - All of these are obviously important... hopefully we can work all of > the ideas in - e.g. combine those around IGF characteristics, > enhanced cooperation and continuation of IGF [links answers (a) to (j). > > > The other six are more or less novel: > > > - ICANN review and IANA contract > - Increased involvement of developing country participants in shaping > the agenda of the IGF, greater role for regional and national meetings > in shaping the IGF rather than the MAG > - Network neutrality, privacy and communication freedom over the > Internet > - Importance of an open and accessible Internet > - A Review Report (from CS) on MAG Responsibilities vs Accountability > w.r.t. UNSG mandate (which global issues resolved or what challenges handled > by IGF MAG at Global Challenges for Internet Global Level) > - Free Software - Free Knowledge > > > So, it appears likely that Ginger and I will speak, and that we will focus > on the themes that received the greatest support - whilst trying to at least > touch on most of them. Ginger has offered to speak first, and will cover > "involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation process". > > Graphs of these results are available on our Web site at > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/37. The exact results of "who voted for > what" will also be put online in due course. If you want to see them now, I > can send you the raw data files and you can pore through them at your > leisure. > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Sep 10 11:20:27 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 20:50:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Page Hacked: Help is required - IGC colleagues, In-Reply-To: <4C8A2E9C.70909@paque.net> References: <595211.23180.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4C8A2E9C.70909@paque.net> Message-ID: Dear Imran, Ginger & All at the Governance List, I do not know if the original Woman Universe website is in any way DIRECTLY related to the Internet Governance community or IGC or Internet Governance participants, so first of all I feel that a link to this hacked site need not have been posted on the Governance List. The reported website http://www.womenuniverse.com/ is defaced with a webpage that shows the flag of India with a message APPARENTLY from "Fighters of India" - No such known group, that is against Pakistan. Imran is right in his observation that "The contents [ of this site ] are replaced by ... the enemies of the both Countries ... to create tension between [ India and Pakistan ]" This is a *clever* attempt by some enemies of India to create adverse publicity for India. As this link is already on the Governance list, I find it necessary to post this comment. 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 Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Dear Imran, > > I checked the page, and see that we need to find a way to deal with this > problem. However, I do not know what the procedure/solution might be. Let's > ask others on the list to review the website and offer suggestions. > > "A website hacking is reported today:" > URL: http://www.womenuniverse.com/ > > Sorry not to be of more help, but am leaving shortly for the airport. > > > > On 9/10/2010 8:33 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > Dear Ginger, > > How are you? We need your support. > > A website hacking is reported today: > URL: http://www.womenuniverse.com/ > > The contents are replaced by the hackers with some threatening messages to one country, > that seems to me an action of the enemies of the both Countries, > who want to create tension between Indo Pak. > > Now days when, we (the people of the both countries) are running campaign to resolve different issues with the title of "Aman ke Asha" (prayer and hope for the peace), this kind of activity may create differences. > > We need IGF help in this regard. > > Thanking you and > > Best Regards. > > Imran > > On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:26 PKT Ginger Paque wrote: > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Sep 10 11:29:52 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:29:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Historical aside (Was: Results of poll on IGF opening and closing) In-Reply-To: References: <2E42BC2D-0876-4447-8C6C-BCA79CF3B2CB@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070DB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4C8A15EB.8070801@paque.net> <4C8A3568.8050502@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3DED0F9D-EE63-47DA-9E35-314B4F7352A5@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi In search of nominally justifiable grounds for procrastinating on organizing presentations, this exchange prodded me to blow an hour digging through saved mail from the early days…a fairly amusing exercise to given all that's followed. Hopefully, some day someone will take the time to write a good history of the IGC. There are some interesting bits that Wolfgang's message doesn't pick up on. One is that this > > 2010/8/1 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > The more formal proposal from the CS was drafted by Bill and me on behalf of the CS Internet Governance Caucus at PrepCom3 in September 2003 in Geneva, long before the WGIG was created and proposed the launch of the IGF. is not quite accurate, as for I think about four months we were called the ICT Global Governance Caucus, and it was under that rubric that we did the above mentioned input to the Geneva 12/03 CS declaration. We switched back to IGC at the Geneva summit when we finally got consensus that IG was much broader than CIR. Long story short, lots of arguments early on about broad vs narrow definitions and what should be within the caucus' scope... Since it's actually in front of me at the moment, in case anyone has ever wondered why this list is hosted by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, which is no longer active in the field: Hans Klein and I (both CPSR at the time) organized a side event workshop at PrepCom 2 in February 2003 on Global Communications Governance (first bullet of my power point says, "'Governance' is not synonymous with the management of Internet identifiers"…harbinger of arguments to come) which led to a group of people talking about a caucus on that in parallel with the CIR-oriented IG caucus Wolfgang and YJ launched from the prepcom, and then to the message below (I assume Hans won't mind me sharing). After further discussion on scope etc the list was tossed up a few days later, and YJ kicked off the discussion here (3/31/03 in the archives). Ok, back to work, Bill --------------- >At 1:14 AM -0500 3/19/03, Hans Klein wrote: >>Dear Fellow Civil Society Activists, >> >>I am involved in three nascent WSIS working groups: >> Internet governance >> Communications Governance >> Intellectual Property Rights >> >>Each is rather small, and all three seem to have substantial >>cross-membership. >> >>I suggest that the groups work function on a single listserv. I will set >>that up in the next day. >> >>If you think this is a bad idea, or if you don't want to be on the list, >>please say so! >> >>Participants that I know of are: >> >>** INTERNET GOVERNANCE >>Wolfgang Kleinwächter , >>"Vittorio Bertola" , >>, >>, >>"Hans Klein" >>"Milton Mueller" mueller at syracuse.edu >>"Michael Froomkin" , >>, >>"Adam Peake" , >>"Gaurab Raj Upadhaya" >> >>** COMMUNICATIONS GOVERNANCE >>"Donald J. MacLean" , >>"William Drake" , >> "Hans Klein" , >>"Sean O Siochru" >>"Gaurab Raj Upadhaya" >> >>** INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY >>"YJ Park" , >>"Drossou Olga" , >>, >>, >>, >>muguet at ensta.fr >>Sean O Siochru >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 10 11:31:37 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:01:37 -0430 Subject: [governance] Page Hacked: Help is required - IGC colleagues, In-Reply-To: References: <595211.23180.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4C8A2E9C.70909@paque.net> Message-ID: <4C8A4F59.1010903@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 tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Fri Sep 10 11:45:52 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:45:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Page Hacked: Help is required - IGC colleagues, In-Reply-To: <4C8A2E9C.70909@paque.net> References: <595211.23180.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4C8A2E9C.70909@paque.net> Message-ID: Hello Imran, Contact your Hosting Service Provider. They can resolve this for you. Tracy On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Dear Imran, > > I checked the page, and see that we need to find a way to deal with this > problem. However, I do not know what the procedure/solution might be. Let's > ask others on the list to review the website and offer suggestions. > > "A website hacking is reported today:" > URL: http://www.womenuniverse.com/ > > Sorry not to be of more help, but am leaving shortly for the airport. > > > > On 9/10/2010 8:33 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > Dear Ginger, > > How are you? We need your support. > > A website hacking is reported today: > URL: http://www.womenuniverse.com/ > > The contents are replaced by the hackers with some threatening messages to one country, > that seems to me an action of the enemies of the both Countries, > who want to create tension between Indo Pak. > > Now days when, we (the people of the both countries) are running campaign to resolve different issues with the title of "Aman ke Asha" (prayer and hope for the peace), this kind of activity may create differences. > > We need IGF help in this regard. > > Thanking you and > > Best Regards. > > Imran > > On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:26 PKT Ginger Paque wrote: > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > 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 Fri Sep 10 12:31:59 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:31:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Many thanks for the congrats Message-ID: Dear all, I have trouble coping with the numerous individual messages of congratulations that I receive on the list and privately. So let me thank collectively all of you who took the time to send best wishes. It is indeed a big change as I will have to leave my current position in the French government before Carthagena for reasons of incompatibility. But I knew it when I applied and cannot complain. It is a very big responsibility at a period of important decisions and I understand the duty. Those of you whom I have traveled along with since the early days of the WSIS and our joint creation of the IGC (cf. Wolfgang's recapitulation a few months ago) know that I have not changed in the principles I believe in and defend in the various incarnations of my activities, including in my current role as official french representative. They are the principles that all stakeholders endorsed in Geneva and Tunis, including the most important of all : that solutions can only be found if all actors are around the table to identify common interests or concerns and that the diversity of opinions is not only a richness but also necessary. It will be the same in the three years to come. My nomination to the ICANN Board is bringing new responsibilities but as I did not lose contact with people from CS when I joined the french government and the GAC (as my posting on this list testifies from time to time) but rather tried to bridge the gap and bring people together, I will not lose contact when joining the Board with IGC or my fellow GAC and HLIG colleagues nor any of the processes that I have devoted so much time in the last years. On the contrary, I hope to help bridge some of the misunderstanding between ICANN and other institutions as well as sometimes between the Board and the community. I volunteered for the Board because it is in my view the best place to be able to act exclusively to help define the global public interest, and am humbled (sincerely) by the trust the Nomcom has put in me. It behooves me to learn first things I may not understand yet, before I can fulfill my duty completely. But I will certainly continue to enjoy interacting with everyone on the list and in person in ICANN or the IGF. Thanks again for your congrats and I'll give more details about my activities when I'll have found how to finance myself in a way that raises neither conflicts of interests nor incompatibility with the bylaws. I have a few weeks/months to find a magic formula and suggestions are welcome ;-) Looking forward to seeing many of you soon in Vilnius. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pbekono at gmail.com Fri Sep 10 13:38:21 2010 From: pbekono at gmail.com (Pascal Bekono) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:38:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Page Hacked: Help is required - IGC colleagues, In-Reply-To: References: <595211.23180.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4C8A2E9C.70909@paque.net> Message-ID: Hi Imran, If you have a clean copy/back-up of your website, it can be easy for you to fix it. (Through Control panel & change password - ) Best, Pascal 2010/9/10, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google : > Hello Imran, > > Contact your Hosting Service Provider. They can resolve this for you. > > Tracy > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Dear Imran, >> >> I checked the page, and see that we need to find a way to deal with this >> problem. However, I do not know what the procedure/solution might be. >> Let's >> ask others on the list to review the website and offer suggestions. >> >> "A website hacking is reported today:" >> URL: http://www.womenuniverse.com/ >> >> Sorry not to be of more help, but am leaving shortly for the airport. >> >> >> >> On 9/10/2010 8:33 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> >> Dear Ginger, >> >> How are you? We need your support. >> >> A website hacking is reported today: >> URL: http://www.womenuniverse.com/ >> >> The contents are replaced by the hackers with some threatening messages to >> one country, >> that seems to me an action of the enemies of the both Countries, >> who want to create tension between Indo Pak. >> >> Now days when, we (the people of the both countries) are running campaign >> to resolve different issues with the title of "Aman ke Asha" (prayer and >> hope for the peace), this kind of activity may create differences. >> >> We need IGF help in this regard. >> >> Thanking you and >> >> Best Regards. >> >> Imran >> >> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:26 PKT Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From brett at accessnow.org Fri Sep 10 14:33:38 2010 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:33:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] APC's IGF2010 brief In-Reply-To: <32645BE9697D40C49362657D71A95AA8@ceo> References: <1284124027.1884.1090.camel@anriette-laptop> <32645BE9697D40C49362657D71A95AA8@ceo> Message-ID: Hi, Thanks for this useful document Anriette. We recently joined this list - and wanted to also say 'hi' prior to the IGF. Here is a link to our site www.accessnow.org (we are a network of digital activists, campaigners and policy heads mobilising for global digital freedom). My colleague Kim Pham and I look forward to catching up with those of you who will be in Vilnius. Here's to keeping the internet open, rights-respecting and accessible to all! Brett -- Brett Solomon Executive Director Access accessnow.org On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 9:22 AM, AHM Bazlur Rahman wrote: > Dear Anriette, > > Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) > Thank you very much for sharing APC's IGF2010 brief. > > Members of Bangladesh Delegation always endorsed APC's IGF position. > > Hope to see you during 5th IGF > > > > 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: "Anriette Esterhuysen" < > anriette at apc.org> > To: > Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 7:07 PM > Subject: [governance] APC's IGF2010 brief > > > > Dear IGC > > We have tried to capture the APC community's priorities for the 2010 IGF > in the attached. > > As always the comments from people in this space are helpful to us. > > Anriette > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > anriette esterhuysen - executive director > association for progressive communications > p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 > anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 > http://www.apc.org > > APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org > Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! > ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! > Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Brett Solomon Executive Director Access accessnow.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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 14:48:06 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:48:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Page Hacked: Help is required - IGC colleagues, In-Reply-To: <4C8A4F59.1010903@paque.net> References: <595211.23180.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4C8A2E9C.70909@paque.net> <4C8A4F59.1010903@paque.net> Message-ID: <207644.82851.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Shiva, and Ginger I understand that this site or this hacking issue is not directly related to IGF or even IGC, but it is also fact that all of us on the list and UN IGF has a common interest and that is Internet Governance (good). We may discuss about the need of Information Security and Cyber Crimes on these forums (incl IGC email list) and this is the right forum to sort out the common global threats to Internet to propose rules and regulations to UN/IGF through Concenses between CS & MAG. Ultimately, one more common goal should be added into the main list of interst is to increase trust on Internet. I forwarded my request through Ms Ginger with the same understanding. Thanks Imran Ahmed Shah ________________________________ From: Ginger Paque To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" ; Sivasubramanian M Sent: Fri, 10 September, 2010 20:31:37 Subject: Re: [governance] Page Hacked: Help is required - IGC colleagues, Hi Shiva, While I understand your point, I do not see it as out of line to ask for help on a CS issue on the IGC list. I see the error as posting it as an 'IGF' issue in the subject line... However, I think that was just an innocent mistake. I do think this is an IG issue, a CS issue, and a genuine request for help to IGC colleagues... Best, Ginger On 9/10/2010 10:50 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: Dear Imran, Ginger & All at the Governance List, > > > > >I do not know if the original Woman Universe website is in any way DIRECTLY >related to the Internet Governance community or IGC or Internet Governance >participants, so first of all I feel that a link to this hacked site need not >have been posted on the Governance List.  > > >The reported website http://www.womenuniverse.com/  is defaced with a webpage >that shows the flag of India with a message APPARENTLY from "Fighters of India" > - No such known group, that is against Pakistan. > > > > >Imran is right in his observation that "The contents [ of this site ] are >replaced by ...the enemies of the both Countries ... to create tension between [ >India and Pakistan ]" > > >This is a clever attempt by some enemies of India to create adverse publicity >for India.  As this link is already on the Governance list, I find it necessary >to post this comment. > > > > > >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 Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >Dear Imran, >> >>I checked the page, and see that we need to find a way to deal with this >>problem. However, I do not know what the procedure/solution might be. Let's ask >>others on the list to review the website and offer suggestions. >> >>"A website hacking is reported today:" URL: http://www.womenuniverse.com/ >>Sorry not to be of more help, but am leaving shortly for the airport. >> >>On 9/10/2010 8:33 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>Dear Ginger, How are you? We need your support. A website hacking is reported >>today: URL: http://www.womenuniverse.com/ The contents are replaced by the >>hackers with some threatening messages to one country, that seems to me an >>action of the enemies of the both Countries, who want to create tension between >>Indo Pak. Now days when, we (the people of the both countries) are running >>campaign to resolve different issues with the title of "Aman ke Asha" (prayer >>and hope for the peace), this kind of activity may create differences. We >>need IGF help in this regard. Thanking you and Best Regards. Imran On Fri, >>10 Sep 2010 16:26 PKT Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>>____________________________________________________________ You received this >>>message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed >>>from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>For all list information and functions, see: >>>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: >>>http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>____________________________________________________________ You received this >>message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be >>removed from the list, send any message to: >>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, >>see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: >>http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >>    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 Sep 10 14:59:17 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:59:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Page Hacked: Help is required - IGC colleagues, In-Reply-To: References: <595211.23180.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4C8A2E9C.70909@paque.net> Message-ID: <895155.44061.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Tracy and Pascal, Thanks for your contribution. Actually, hacker has changed ftp access, and control panel paswords, and wordpress site admin passwords. We tried to contact hosting service provider, M/s Nexus and they have changed user passwords to access control panel. Now trying to locating the roots. I also advised the site owner for the following immediate action: 1.    Change all of Admin passwords of cpanel, FTP Accounts as well as the passwords listed in the data base which has admin rights. 2.    Lock DNS Modification & Domain Transfer Functionality. 3.    Trace and Resolve SQL Injection. However, may I request you to discuss this kind of common Threats about Global Internet during the comming IGF Meeting. Thanks again, Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah   ________________________________ From: Pascal Bekono To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" Sent: Fri, 10 September, 2010 22:38:21 Subject: Re: [governance] Page Hacked: Help is required - IGC colleagues, Hi Imran, If you have a clean copy/back-up of your website, it can be easy for you to fix it. (Through Control panel & change password - ) Best, Pascal 2010/9/10, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google : > Hello Imran, > > Contact your Hosting Service Provider. They can resolve this for you. > > Tracy > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Dear Imran, >> >> I checked the page, and see that we need to find a way to deal with this >> problem. However, I do not know what the procedure/solution might be. >> Let's >> ask others on the list to review the website and offer suggestions. >> >> "A website hacking is reported today:" >> URL:  http://www.womenuniverse.com/ >> >> Sorry not to be of more help, but am leaving shortly for the airport. >> >> >> >> On 9/10/2010 8:33 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> >> Dear Ginger, >> >> How are you? We need your support. >> >> A website hacking is reported today: >> URL:  http://www.womenuniverse.com/ >> >> The contents are replaced by the hackers with some threatening messages to >> one country, >> that seems to me an action of the enemies of the both Countries, >> who want to create tension between Indo Pak. >> >> Now days when, we (the people of the both countries) are running campaign >> to resolve different issues with the title of "Aman ke Asha" (prayer and >> hope for the peace), this kind of activity may create differences. >> >> We need IGF help in this regard. >> >> Thanking you and >> >> Best Regards. >> >> Imran >> >> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:26 PKT Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     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 Fri Sep 10 15:35:17 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 21:35:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] Results of poll and the two IGF speeches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, I have come to learn that due to a large number of responses and interest, the IGF Secretariat will also hold a draw for selecting the names of various people to speak in the opening and closing sessions of the IGF to maintain transparency at their end and have invited whoever can be present at 15:00hrs on the 13th of September 2010 in the main venue in Vilnius to participate in the draw and help draw the names in the open ballot ;o) It also remains that we are not the only ones that are invited to propose names! I also second Bertrand's suggestion. On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Jeremy, dear all, > > I think the co-coordinators make perfect sense. and the poll method has > been very useful as a thermometer. Regarding the topics, some suggestions : > > - I suggest that when drafting the speeches, you u*se the ranking of the > various themes* not as indication of some been kept and others dropped but > rather *as an indication of the length of the paragraphs that should be > devoted to each* : all issues are worth mentioning and the fact that > gender for instance only has 12 % does not prevent from making a short > paragraph about it (because it is indeed important); having two speeches > allows to cover most ground > - it would probably be interesting to focus t*he opening on the more > substantive topics* (UDHR, and most of the "novel ones", even if IANA or > net neutrality are not completely new) in order to produce food for thought > for the rest of the week. As you've often heard me say, the best way to get > consensus in the IGC and to have a positive impact in the discussions is to > focus on the framing of each problem and fundamental principles rather than > advocating for a specific solution (as in many cases CS is not of a uniform > voice). Ginger would probably be best for the opening > - the *closing session could focus more on procedural issues *and looking > forward at the future of the IGF (continuation, "improvements"), the need to > preserve certain fundamental operational principles and more generally the > role of the different stakeholders, in particular civil society in the > upcoming enhanced cooperation discussions. Given his keen interest in those > topics, I suppose Jeremy would be the most suited to it. It also leaves some > time during the IGF to polish the positionning (on site and online) and take > into account some of the comments and discussions that will take place. > Please do not forget to include the item "congratulating the IGF" along > possible recommendations for change. Even if there is ample room for > improvement, this is still a fragile experiment that deserves some > protection and has established (as wolfgang rightly highlighted) a pattern > of interaction unavailable anywhere else. > > I hope this helps and trusts that we'll have a good IGF. > > Looking forward to seeing many of you soon. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> The results are as follows. 128 responses were received, 117 in full and >> the balance in part (ie. only one of the two questions), from 463 >> invitations sent. This is a response rate of 27.6%, which is reasonable by >> IGC standards, bearing in mind that some people are subscribed twice or more >> under different addresses, and that we have some lurkers, eg. from the IGF >> Secretariat, who do not participate in the IGC's consensus decision-making. >> >> I'll take the results question by question. On the first question, there >> was a clear enough view that Ginger and I, as the IGC coordinators, should >> take the opening and closing slots; this was also the only choice supported >> by more than half the respondents. Parminder and Wolfgang were next most >> common choices. Karen Banks and Valeria Betancourt were the women who >> received the most support, though with less than one third of respondents >> for either of them. >> >> Therefore I will be recommending to the IGF Secretariat that Ginger and I >> speak. If they do not agree with this, then I will suggest that Parminder >> and Valeria speak (although Karen received equal support, Valeria pips Karen >> on geographical diversity - sorry Karen). >> >> Here are the percentage breakdowns for the first question (sorry, this may >> look bad if your email program doesn't support HTML): >> >> *Which four names should be put forward as civil society speakers? * * >> Answer* *Count* *Percentage* Fouad Bajwa (a) 3325.78% Fatimata Seye >> Sylla (b) 2821.88% Valeria Betancourt (c) 3628.12% Wolfgang >> Kleinwachter (d) 5542.97% Parminder Jeet Singh (e) 6450.00% Co-coordinators >> (Jeremy Malcolm and Ginger Paque) (f) 75 58.59% Karen Banks (g) 3628.12% >> Ben Akoh (h) 1713.28% Katitza Rodriguez (i) 3225.00% Marilia Maciel >> (available for opening only) (j) 33 25.78% >> On the second question, the most popular answer was "Involvement of civil >> society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance". There are >> five other answers that were also clearly more popular than the others: the >> development dimension of IG, the retention of the IGF's core >> characteristics, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the >> desirability of improving inclusion and participation, and the desirability >> that the IGF continue to evolve and innovate. >> >> Leaving aside "Other", there were only three questions that received >> support from less than a third of respondents: congratulating the IGF on its >> successes, the gender dimension and the role of dynamic coalitions. So >> leaving these aside, all of the available choices of theme were quite >> popular. >> >> Here is the complete breakdown of responses to the second question: >> >> *What are the top five themes to suggest the speakers address in their >> presentations? * *Answer* *Count* *Percentage* Congratulating the IGF (on >> the completion of its first term, its innovative structure, etc.) (a) 3225.00% Universal >> Declaration of Human Rights and the Internet (b) 65 50.78% Development >> dimension of Internet governance (c) 70 54.69% Involvement of civil >> society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance (d) 7860.94% Retention >> of IGF's core characteristics (multistakeholderism, openness, consultative >> program shaping processes) (e) 68 53.12% Desirability that IGF continue >> to evolve and innovate as necessary, within its non-binding mandate (f) >> 54 42.19% Gender dimension of Internet governance (g) 1612.50% Desirability >> of improving inclusion and participation (including remote participation) at >> the IGF (h) 57 44.53% Role of dynamic coalitions (i) 2418.75% Non-negotiated >> outputs such as "messages from" or "recommendations at" the IGF (j) 3728.91% >> Other 107.81% >> >> Of the ten "Other" responses, four link in with other available answers: >> >> >> - Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, >> with a modified mandate to give its outputs more weight [an extended version >> of answer (f)] >> - An articulated, hierarchical scheme for producing consensus >> "messages" or "recommendations" [an extended version of answer (j)] >> - Consideration of a more serious role in global net gov policymaking, >> building on first 5 years of talk shop [an extension of answers (f) and (j)] >> - All of these are obviously important... hopefully we can work all of >> the ideas in - e.g. combine those around IGF characteristics, >> enhanced cooperation and continuation of IGF [links answers (a) to (j). >> >> >> The other six are more or less novel: >> >> >> - ICANN review and IANA contract >> - Increased involvement of developing country participants in shaping >> the agenda of the IGF, greater role for regional and national meetings >> in shaping the IGF rather than the MAG >> - Network neutrality, privacy and communication freedom over the >> Internet >> - Importance of an open and accessible Internet >> - A Review Report (from CS) on MAG Responsibilities vs Accountability >> w.r.t. UNSG mandate (which global issues resolved or what challenges handled >> by IGF MAG at Global Challenges for Internet Global Level) >> - Free Software - Free Knowledge >> >> >> So, it appears likely that Ginger and I will speak, and that we will focus >> on the themes that received the greatest support - whilst trying to at least >> touch on most of them. Ginger has offered to speak first, and will cover >> "involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation process". >> >> Graphs of these results are available on our Web site at >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/37. The exact results of "who voted for >> what" will also be put online in due course. If you want to see them now, I >> can send you the raw data files and you can pore through them at your >> leisure. >> >> -- >> >> *Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator* >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> *CI is 50* >> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in >> 2010. >> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 >> > > > > -- > ____________________ > 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 > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Sep 10 15:42:57 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 21:42:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Results of poll and the two IGF speeches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In continuation of my earlier message: The IGF secretariat is preparing the list of speakers for the opening ceremony and will mix the speakers from the various stakeholder groups. The first three speakers will be: 1. Assistant Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs 2. Mr. Jomo Kwame Sundaram, the President of Lithuania 3. Ms. Dalia Grybauskaite and the Minister of Transport and Communications 4. Mr. Eligijus Masiulis who will assume the Chairmanship of the meeting. After that, speaker's list is in a non-hierarchical way, beginning with a video message from last year's Chairman, Minister Tarek Kamel and ending with a representative of the country which has offered to the 2011 meeting, Kenya. The IGF secretariat also decided to conduct a transparent and fair way to distribute the speaking slots by drawing lots for the other speakers and plans to draw the lots on 13 September at 1500 hours thus the speakers or their representatives are of course cordially invited to attend this session and draw their lot themselves. --- Fouad On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > Hi all, > I have come to learn that due to a large number of responses and interest, the IGF Secretariat will also hold a draw for selecting the names of various people to speak in the opening and closing sessions of the IGF to maintain transparency at their end and have invited whoever can be present at 15:00hrs on the 13th of September 2010 in the main venue in Vilnius to participate in the draw and help draw the names in the open ballot ;o) > It also remains that we are not the only ones that are invited to propose names! > I also second Bertrand's suggestion. > > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> >> Dear Jeremy, dear all, >> I think the co-coordinators make perfect sense. and the poll method has been very useful as a thermometer. Regarding the topics, some suggestions : >> - I suggest that when drafting the speeches, you use the ranking of the various themes not as indication of some been kept and others dropped but rather as an indication of the length of the paragraphs that should be devoted to each : all issues are worth mentioning and the fact that gender for instance only has 12 % does not prevent from making a short paragraph about it (because it is indeed important); having two speeches allows to cover most ground >> - it would probably be interesting to focus the opening on the more substantive topics (UDHR, and most of the "novel ones", even if IANA or net neutrality are not completely new) in order to produce food for thought for the rest of the week. As you've often heard me say, the best way to get consensus in the IGC and to have a positive impact in the discussions is to focus on the framing of each problem and fundamental principles rather than advocating for a specific solution (as in many cases CS is not of a uniform voice). Ginger would probably be best for the opening >> - the closing session could focus more on procedural issues and looking forward at the future of the IGF (continuation, "improvements"), the need to preserve certain fundamental operational principles and more generally the role of the different stakeholders, in particular civil society in the upcoming enhanced cooperation discussions. Given his keen interest in those topics, I suppose Jeremy would be the most suited to it. It also leaves some time during the IGF to polish the positionning (on site and online) and take into account some of the comments and discussions that will take place. Please do not forget to include the item "congratulating the IGF" along possible recommendations for change. Even if there is ample room for improvement, this is still a fragile experiment that deserves some protection and has established (as wolfgang rightly highlighted) a pattern of interaction unavailable anywhere else. >> I hope this helps and trusts that we'll have a good IGF. >> Looking forward to seeing many of you soon. >> Best >> Bertrand >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>> The results are as follows.  128 responses were received, 117 in full and the balance in part (ie. only one of the two questions), from 463 invitations sent.  This is a response rate of 27.6%, which is reasonable by IGC standards, bearing in mind that some people are subscribed twice or more under different addresses, and that we have some lurkers, eg. from the IGF Secretariat, who do not participate in the IGC's consensus decision-making. >>> I'll take the results question by question.  On the first question, there was a clear enough view that Ginger and I, as the IGC coordinators, should take the opening and closing slots; this was also the only choice supported by more than half the respondents.  Parminder and Wolfgang were next most common choices.  Karen Banks and Valeria Betancourt were the women who received the most support, though with less than one third of respondents for either of them. >>> Therefore I will be recommending to the IGF Secretariat that Ginger and I speak.  If they do not agree with this, then I will suggest that Parminder and Valeria speak (although Karen received equal support, Valeria pips Karen on geographical diversity - sorry Karen). >>> Here are the percentage breakdowns for the first question (sorry, this may look bad if your email program doesn't support HTML): >>> Which four names should be put forward as civil society speakers? >>> Answer Count Percentage >>> Fouad Bajwa (a) 3325.78% >>> Fatimata Seye Sylla (b) 2821.88% >>> Valeria Betancourt (c) 3628.12% >>> Wolfgang Kleinwachter (d) 5542.97% >>> Parminder Jeet Singh (e) 6450.00% >>> Co-coordinators (Jeremy Malcolm and Ginger Paque) (f) 75 58.59% >>> Karen Banks (g) 3628.12% >>> Ben Akoh (h) 1713.28% >>> Katitza Rodriguez (i) 3225.00% >>> Marilia Maciel (available for opening only) (j) 33 25.78% >>> On the second question, the most popular answer was "Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance".  There are five other answers that were also clearly more popular than the others: the development dimension of IG, the retention of the IGF's core characteristics, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the desirability of improving inclusion and participation, and the desirability that the IGF continue to evolve and innovate. >>> Leaving aside "Other", there were only three questions that received support from less than a third of respondents: congratulating the IGF on its successes, the gender dimension and the role of dynamic coalitions.  So leaving these aside, all of the available choices of theme were quite popular. >>> Here is the complete breakdown of responses to the second question: >>> What are the top five themes to suggest the speakers address in their presentations? >>> Answer Count Percentage >>> Congratulating the IGF (on the completion of its first term, its innovative structure, etc.) (a) 32 25.00% >>> Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Internet (b) 65 50.78% >>> Development dimension of Internet governance (c) 70 54.69% >>> Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance (d) 78 60.94% >>> Retention of IGF's core characteristics (multistakeholderism, openness, consultative program shaping processes) (e) 68 53.12% >>> Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, within its non-binding mandate (f) 54 42.19% >>> Gender dimension of Internet governance (g) 1612.50% >>> Desirability of improving inclusion and participation (including remote participation) at the IGF (h) 57 44.53% >>> Role of dynamic coalitions (i) 2418.75% >>> Non-negotiated outputs such as "messages from" or "recommendations at" the IGF (j) 37 28.91% >>> Other  107.81% >>> Of the ten "Other" responses, four link in with other available answers: >>> >>> Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, with a modified mandate to give its outputs more weight [an extended version of answer (f)] >>> An articulated, hierarchical scheme for producing consensus "messages" or "recommendations" [an extended version of answer (j)] >>> Consideration of a more serious role in global net gov policymaking, building on first 5 years of talk shop [an extension of answers (f) and (j)] >>> All of these are obviously important... hopefully we can work all of the ideas in - e.g. combine those around IGF characteristics, enhanced cooperation and continuation of IGF [links answers (a) to (j). >>> >>> The other six are more or less novel: >>> >>> ICANN review and IANA contract >>> Increased involvement of developing country participants in shaping the agenda of the IGF, greater role for regional and national meetings in shaping the IGF rather than the MAG >>> Network neutrality, privacy and communication freedom over the Internet >>> Importance of an open and accessible Internet >>> A Review Report (from CS) on MAG Responsibilities vs Accountability w.r.t. UNSG mandate (which global issues resolved or what challenges handled by IGF MAG at Global Challenges for Internet Global Level) >>> Free Software - Free Knowledge >>> >>> So, it appears likely that Ginger and I will speak, and that we will focus on the themes that received the greatest support - whilst trying to at least touch on most of them.  Ginger has offered to speak first, and will cover "involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation process". >>> Graphs of these results are available on our Web site at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/37.  The exact results of "who voted for what" will also be put online in due course.  If you want to see them now, I can send you the raw data files and you can pore through them at your leisure. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Jeremy Malcolm >>> Project Coordinator >>> Consumers International >>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> CI is 50 >>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. >>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> 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 > > > > -- > 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 psg.com Fri Sep 10 16:06:09 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 23:06:09 +0300 Subject: [governance] Results of poll and the two IGF speeches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, If I may be permitted a comment on this note. The names are set and are posted on the web site for both the opening and the closing. It is the order of speakers that will be subject to a lot drawing. a. On 10 Sep 2010, at 22:35, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Hi all, > > I have come to learn that due to a large number of responses and interest, the IGF Secretariat will also hold a draw for selecting the names of various people to speak in the opening and closing sessions of the IGF to maintain transparency at their end and have invited whoever can be present at 15:00hrs on the 13th of September 2010 in the main venue in Vilnius to participate in the draw and help draw the names in the open ballot ;o) > > It also remains that we are not the only ones that are invited to propose names! > > I also second Bertrand's suggestion. > > > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear Jeremy, dear all, > > I think the co-coordinators make perfect sense. and the poll method has been very useful as a thermometer. Regarding the topics, some suggestions : > > - I suggest that when drafting the speeches, you use the ranking of the various themes not as indication of some been kept and others dropped but rather as an indication of the length of the paragraphs that should be devoted to each : all issues are worth mentioning and the fact that gender for instance only has 12 % does not prevent from making a short paragraph about it (because it is indeed important); having two speeches allows to cover most ground > - it would probably be interesting to focus the opening on the more substantive topics (UDHR, and most of the "novel ones", even if IANA or net neutrality are not completely new) in order to produce food for thought for the rest of the week. As you've often heard me say, the best way to get consensus in the IGC and to have a positive impact in the discussions is to focus on the framing of each problem and fundamental principles rather than advocating for a specific solution (as in many cases CS is not of a uniform voice). Ginger would probably be best for the opening > - the closing session could focus more on procedural issues and looking forward at the future of the IGF (continuation, "improvements"), the need to preserve certain fundamental operational principles and more generally the role of the different stakeholders, in particular civil society in the upcoming enhanced cooperation discussions. Given his keen interest in those topics, I suppose Jeremy would be the most suited to it. It also leaves some time during the IGF to polish the positionning (on site and online) and take into account some of the comments and discussions that will take place. Please do not forget to include the item "congratulating the IGF" along possible recommendations for change. Even if there is ample room for improvement, this is still a fragile experiment that deserves some protection and has established (as wolfgang rightly highlighted) a pattern of interaction unavailable anywhere else. > > I hope this helps and trusts that we'll have a good IGF. > > Looking forward to seeing many of you soon. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > The results are as follows. 128 responses were received, 117 in full and the balance in part (ie. only one of the two questions), from 463 invitations sent. This is a response rate of 27.6%, which is reasonable by IGC standards, bearing in mind that some people are subscribed twice or more under different addresses, and that we have some lurkers, eg. from the IGF Secretariat, who do not participate in the IGC's consensus decision-making. > > I'll take the results question by question. On the first question, there was a clear enough view that Ginger and I, as the IGC coordinators, should take the opening and closing slots; this was also the only choice supported by more than half the respondents. Parminder and Wolfgang were next most common choices. Karen Banks and Valeria Betancourt were the women who received the most support, though with less than one third of respondents for either of them. > > Therefore I will be recommending to the IGF Secretariat that Ginger and I speak. If they do not agree with this, then I will suggest that Parminder and Valeria speak (although Karen received equal support, Valeria pips Karen on geographical diversity - sorry Karen). > > Here are the percentage breakdowns for the first question (sorry, this may look bad if your email program doesn't support HTML): > > Which four names should be put forward as civil society speakers? > Answer Count Percentage > Fouad Bajwa (a) 33 25.78% > Fatimata Seye Sylla (b) 28 21.88% > Valeria Betancourt (c) 36 28.12% > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (d) 55 42.97% > Parminder Jeet Singh (e) 64 50.00% > Co-coordinators (Jeremy Malcolm and Ginger Paque) (f) 75 58.59% > Karen Banks (g) 36 28.12% > Ben Akoh (h) 17 13.28% > Katitza Rodriguez (i) 32 25.00% > Marilia Maciel (available for opening only) (j) 33 25.78% > > On the second question, the most popular answer was "Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance". There are five other answers that were also clearly more popular than the others: the development dimension of IG, the retention of the IGF's core characteristics, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the desirability of improving inclusion and participation, and the desirability that the IGF continue to evolve and innovate. > > Leaving aside "Other", there were only three questions that received support from less than a third of respondents: congratulating the IGF on its successes, the gender dimension and the role of dynamic coalitions. So leaving these aside, all of the available choices of theme were quite popular. > > Here is the complete breakdown of responses to the second question: > > What are the top five themes to suggest the speakers address in their presentations? > Answer Count Percentage > Congratulating the IGF (on the completion of its first term, its innovative structure, etc.) (a) 32 25.00% > Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Internet (b) 65 50.78% > Development dimension of Internet governance (c) 70 54.69% > Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance (d) 78 60.94% > Retention of IGF's core characteristics (multistakeholderism, openness, consultative program shaping processes) (e) 68 53.12% > Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, within its non-binding mandate (f) 54 42.19% > Gender dimension of Internet governance (g) 16 12.50% > Desirability of improving inclusion and participation (including remote participation) at the IGF (h) 57 44.53% > Role of dynamic coalitions (i) 24 18.75% > Non-negotiated outputs such as "messages from" or "recommendations at" the IGF (j) 37 28.91% > Other 10 7.81% > > Of the ten "Other" responses, four link in with other available answers: > > • Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, with a modified mandate to give its outputs more weight [an extended version of answer (f)] > • An articulated, hierarchical scheme for producing consensus "messages" or "recommendations" [an extended version of answer (j)] > • Consideration of a more serious role in global net gov policymaking, building on first 5 years of talk shop [an extension of answers (f) and (j)] > • All of these are obviously important... hopefully we can work all of the ideas in - e.g. combine those around IGF characteristics, enhanced cooperation and continuation of IGF [links answers (a) to (j). > > The other six are more or less novel: > > • ICANN review and IANA contract > • Increased involvement of developing country participants in shaping the agenda of the IGF, greater role for regional and national meetings in shaping the IGF rather than the MAG > • Network neutrality, privacy and communication freedom over the Internet > • Importance of an open and accessible Internet > • A Review Report (from CS) on MAG Responsibilities vs Accountability w.r.t. UNSG mandate (which global issues resolved or what challenges handled by IGF MAG at Global Challenges for Internet Global Level) > • Free Software - Free Knowledge > > So, it appears likely that Ginger and I will speak, and that we will focus on the themes that received the greatest support - whilst trying to at least touch on most of them. Ginger has offered to speak first, and will cover "involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation process". > > Graphs of these results are available on our Web site at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/37. The exact results of "who voted for what" will also be put online in due course. If you want to see them now, I can send you the raw data files and you can pore through them at your leisure. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > CI is 50 > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 > > > > -- > ____________________ > 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 > > > > -- > 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Sep 10 16:12:13 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 22:12:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Results of poll and the two IGF speeches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeup, apologies for missing that part and thanks to Avri for reminding that! -- Fouad On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > If I may be permitted a comment on this note. > > The names are set and are posted on the web site for both the opening and the closing. > > It is the order of speakers that will be subject to a lot drawing. > > a. > > On 10 Sep 2010, at 22:35, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I have come to learn that due to a large number of responses and interest, the IGF Secretariat will also hold a draw for selecting the names of various people to speak in the opening and closing sessions of the IGF to maintain transparency at their end and have invited whoever can be present at 15:00hrs on the 13th of September 2010 in the main venue in Vilnius to participate in the draw and help draw the names in the open ballot ;o) >> >> It also remains that we are not the only ones that are invited to propose names! >> >> I also second Bertrand's suggestion. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> Dear Jeremy, dear all, >> >> I think the co-coordinators make perfect sense. and the poll method has been very useful as a thermometer. Regarding the topics, some suggestions : >> >> - I suggest that when drafting the speeches, you use the ranking of the various themes not as indication of some been kept and others dropped but rather as an indication of the length of the paragraphs that should be devoted to each : all issues are worth mentioning and the fact that gender for instance only has 12 % does not prevent from making a short paragraph about it (because it is indeed important); having two speeches allows to cover most ground >> - it would probably be interesting to focus the opening on the more substantive topics (UDHR, and most of the "novel ones", even if IANA or net neutrality are not completely new) in order to produce food for thought for the rest of the week. As you've often heard me say, the best way to get consensus in the IGC and to have a positive impact in the discussions is to focus on the framing of each problem and fundamental principles rather than advocating for a specific solution (as in many cases CS is not of a uniform voice). Ginger would probably be best for the opening >> - the closing session could focus more on procedural issues and looking forward at the future of the IGF (continuation, "improvements"), the need to preserve certain fundamental operational principles and more generally the role of the different stakeholders, in particular civil society in the upcoming enhanced cooperation discussions. Given his keen interest in those topics, I suppose Jeremy would be the most suited to it. It also leaves some time during the IGF to polish the positionning (on site and online) and take into account some of the comments and discussions that will take place. Please do not forget to include the item "congratulating the IGF" along possible recommendations for change. Even if there is ample room for improvement, this is still a fragile experiment that deserves some protection and has established (as wolfgang rightly highlighted) a pattern of interaction unavailable anywhere else. >> >> I hope this helps and trusts that we'll have a good IGF. >> >> Looking forward to seeing many of you soon. >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> The results are as follows.  128 responses were received, 117 in full and the balance in part (ie. only one of the two questions), from 463 invitations sent.  This is a response rate of 27.6%, which is reasonable by IGC standards, bearing in mind that some people are subscribed twice or more under different addresses, and that we have some lurkers, eg. from the IGF Secretariat, who do not participate in the IGC's consensus decision-making. >> >> I'll take the results question by question.  On the first question, there was a clear enough view that Ginger and I, as the IGC coordinators, should take the opening and closing slots; this was also the only choice supported by more than half the respondents.  Parminder and Wolfgang were next most common choices.  Karen Banks and Valeria Betancourt were the women who received the most support, though with less than one third of respondents for either of them. >> >> Therefore I will be recommending to the IGF Secretariat that Ginger and I speak.  If they do not agree with this, then I will suggest that Parminder and Valeria speak (although Karen received equal support, Valeria pips Karen on geographical diversity - sorry Karen). >> >> Here are the percentage breakdowns for the first question (sorry, this may look bad if your email program doesn't support HTML): >> >> Which four names should be put forward as civil society speakers? >> Answer        Count   Percentage >> Fouad Bajwa (a)        33     25.78% >> Fatimata Seye Sylla (b)        28     21.88% >> Valeria Betancourt (c)         36     28.12% >> Wolfgang Kleinwachter (d)      55     42.97% >> Parminder Jeet Singh (e)       64     50.00% >> Co-coordinators (Jeremy Malcolm and Ginger Paque) (f) 75       58.59% >> Karen Banks (g)        36     28.12% >> Ben Akoh (h)   17     13.28% >> Katitza Rodriguez (i)  32     25.00% >> Marilia Maciel (available for opening only) (j)       33       25.78% >> >> On the second question, the most popular answer was "Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance".  There are five other answers that were also clearly more popular than the others: the development dimension of IG, the retention of the IGF's core characteristics, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the desirability of improving inclusion and participation, and the desirability that the IGF continue to evolve and innovate. >> >> Leaving aside "Other", there were only three questions that received support from less than a third of respondents: congratulating the IGF on its successes, the gender dimension and the role of dynamic coalitions.  So leaving these aside, all of the available choices of theme were quite popular. >> >> Here is the complete breakdown of responses to the second question: >> >> What are the top five themes to suggest the speakers address in their presentations? >> Answer        Count   Percentage >> Congratulating the IGF (on the completion of its first term, its innovative structure, etc.) (a)      32       25.00% >> Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Internet (b)    65       50.78% >> Development dimension of Internet governance (c)      70       54.69% >> Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance (d)        78       60.94% >> Retention of IGF's core characteristics (multistakeholderism, openness, consultative program shaping processes) (e)   68       53.12% >> Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, within its non-binding mandate (f)        54       42.19% >> Gender dimension of Internet governance (g)    16     12.50% >> Desirability of improving inclusion and participation (including remote participation) at the IGF (h) 57       44.53% >> Role of dynamic coalitions (i)         24     18.75% >> Non-negotiated outputs such as "messages from" or "recommendations at" the IGF (j)    37       28.91% >> Other          10     7.81% >> >> Of the ten "Other" responses, four link in with other available answers: >> >>       • Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, with a modified mandate to give its outputs more weight [an extended version of answer (f)] >>       • An articulated, hierarchical scheme for producing consensus "messages" or "recommendations" [an extended version of answer (j)] >>       • Consideration of a more serious role in global net gov policymaking, building on first 5 years of talk shop [an extension of answers (f) and (j)] >>       • All of these are obviously important... hopefully we can work all of the ideas in - e.g. combine those around IGF characteristics, enhanced cooperation and continuation of IGF [links answers (a) to (j). >> >> The other six are more or less novel: >> >>       • ICANN review and IANA contract >>       • Increased involvement of developing country participants in shaping the agenda of the IGF, greater role for regional and national meetings in shaping the IGF rather than the MAG >>       • Network neutrality, privacy and communication freedom over the Internet >>       • Importance of an open and accessible Internet >>       • A Review Report (from CS) on MAG Responsibilities vs Accountability w.r.t. UNSG mandate (which global issues resolved or what challenges handled by IGF MAG at Global Challenges for Internet Global Level) >>       • Free Software - Free Knowledge >> >> So, it appears likely that Ginger and I will speak, and that we will focus on the themes that received the greatest support - whilst trying to at least touch on most of them.  Ginger has offered to speak first, and will cover "involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation process". >> >> Graphs of these results are available on our Web site at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/37.  The exact results of "who voted for what" will also be put online in due course.  If you want to see them now, I can send you the raw data files and you can pore through them at your leisure. >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> CI is 50 >> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. >> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 -- 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 kichango at gmail.com Fri Sep 10 16:26:05 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:26:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Results of poll and the two IGF speeches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Glad to hear that clarification, Avri. I was a little troubled at the idea that we'd be down to a lottory for the *choice* of speakers by the IGF Secretariat --which would have made our polling completely useless, and no sense! Mawaki On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Yeup, apologies for missing that part and thanks to Avri for reminding > that! > > -- Fouad > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > > > If I may be permitted a comment on this note. > > > > The names are set and are posted on the web site for both the opening and > the closing. > > > > It is the order of speakers that will be subject to a lot drawing. > > > > a. > > > > On 10 Sep 2010, at 22:35, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I have come to learn that due to a large number of responses and > interest, the IGF Secretariat will also hold a draw for selecting the names > of various people to speak in the opening and closing sessions of the IGF to > maintain transparency at their end and have invited whoever can be present > at 15:00hrs on the 13th of September 2010 in the main venue in Vilnius to > participate in the draw and help draw the names in the open ballot ;o) > >> > >> It also remains that we are not the only ones that are invited to > propose names! > >> > >> I also second Bertrand's suggestion. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < > bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Jeremy, dear all, > >> > >> I think the co-coordinators make perfect sense. and the poll method has > been very useful as a thermometer. Regarding the topics, some suggestions : > >> > >> - I suggest that when drafting the speeches, you use the ranking of the > various themes not as indication of some been kept and others dropped but > rather as an indication of the length of the paragraphs that should be > devoted to each : all issues are worth mentioning and the fact that gender > for instance only has 12 % does not prevent from making a short paragraph > about it (because it is indeed important); having two speeches allows to > cover most ground > >> - it would probably be interesting to focus the opening on the more > substantive topics (UDHR, and most of the "novel ones", even if IANA or net > neutrality are not completely new) in order to produce food for thought for > the rest of the week. As you've often heard me say, the best way to get > consensus in the IGC and to have a positive impact in the discussions is to > focus on the framing of each problem and fundamental principles rather than > advocating for a specific solution (as in many cases CS is not of a uniform > voice). Ginger would probably be best for the opening > >> - the closing session could focus more on procedural issues and looking > forward at the future of the IGF (continuation, "improvements"), the need to > preserve certain fundamental operational principles and more generally the > role of the different stakeholders, in particular civil society in the > upcoming enhanced cooperation discussions. Given his keen interest in those > topics, I suppose Jeremy would be the most suited to it. It also leaves some > time during the IGF to polish the positionning (on site and online) and take > into account some of the comments and discussions that will take place. > Please do not forget to include the item "congratulating the IGF" along > possible recommendations for change. Even if there is ample room for > improvement, this is still a fragile experiment that deserves some > protection and has established (as wolfgang rightly highlighted) a pattern > of interaction unavailable anywhere else. > >> > >> I hope this helps and trusts that we'll have a good IGF. > >> > >> Looking forward to seeing many of you soon. > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Bertrand > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > >> The results are as follows. 128 responses were received, 117 in full > and the balance in part (ie. only one of the two questions), from 463 > invitations sent. This is a response rate of 27.6%, which is reasonable by > IGC standards, bearing in mind that some people are subscribed twice or more > under different addresses, and that we have some lurkers, eg. from the IGF > Secretariat, who do not participate in the IGC's consensus decision-making. > >> > >> I'll take the results question by question. On the first question, > there was a clear enough view that Ginger and I, as the IGC coordinators, > should take the opening and closing slots; this was also the only choice > supported by more than half the respondents. Parminder and Wolfgang were > next most common choices. Karen Banks and Valeria Betancourt were the women > who received the most support, though with less than one third of > respondents for either of them. > >> > >> Therefore I will be recommending to the IGF Secretariat that Ginger and > I speak. If they do not agree with this, then I will suggest that Parminder > and Valeria speak (although Karen received equal support, Valeria pips Karen > on geographical diversity - sorry Karen). > >> > >> Here are the percentage breakdowns for the first question (sorry, this > may look bad if your email program doesn't support HTML): > >> > >> Which four names should be put forward as civil society speakers? > >> Answer Count Percentage > >> Fouad Bajwa (a) 33 25.78% > >> Fatimata Seye Sylla (b) 28 21.88% > >> Valeria Betancourt (c) 36 28.12% > >> Wolfgang Kleinwachter (d) 55 42.97% > >> Parminder Jeet Singh (e) 64 50.00% > >> Co-coordinators (Jeremy Malcolm and Ginger Paque) (f) 75 58.59% > >> Karen Banks (g) 36 28.12% > >> Ben Akoh (h) 17 13.28% > >> Katitza Rodriguez (i) 32 25.00% > >> Marilia Maciel (available for opening only) (j) 33 25.78% > >> > >> On the second question, the most popular answer was "Involvement of > civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance". There > are five other answers that were also clearly more popular than the others: > the development dimension of IG, the retention of the IGF's core > characteristics, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the > desirability of improving inclusion and participation, and the desirability > that the IGF continue to evolve and innovate. > >> > >> Leaving aside "Other", there were only three questions that received > support from less than a third of respondents: congratulating the IGF on its > successes, the gender dimension and the role of dynamic coalitions. So > leaving these aside, all of the available choices of theme were quite > popular. > >> > >> Here is the complete breakdown of responses to the second question: > >> > >> What are the top five themes to suggest the speakers address in their > presentations? > >> Answer Count Percentage > >> Congratulating the IGF (on the completion of its first term, its > innovative structure, etc.) (a) 32 25.00% > >> Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Internet (b) 65 > 50.78% > >> Development dimension of Internet governance (c) 70 54.69% > >> Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet > governance (d) 78 60.94% > >> Retention of IGF's core characteristics (multistakeholderism, openness, > consultative program shaping processes) (e) 68 53.12% > >> Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, > within its non-binding mandate (f) 54 42.19% > >> Gender dimension of Internet governance (g) 16 12.50% > >> Desirability of improving inclusion and participation (including remote > participation) at the IGF (h) 57 44.53% > >> Role of dynamic coalitions (i) 24 18.75% > >> Non-negotiated outputs such as "messages from" or "recommendations at" > the IGF (j) 37 28.91% > >> Other 10 7.81% > >> > >> Of the ten "Other" responses, four link in with other available answers: > >> > >> • Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as > necessary, with a modified mandate to give its outputs more weight [an > extended version of answer (f)] > >> • An articulated, hierarchical scheme for producing consensus > "messages" or "recommendations" [an extended version of answer (j)] > >> • Consideration of a more serious role in global net gov > policymaking, building on first 5 years of talk shop [an extension of > answers (f) and (j)] > >> • All of these are obviously important... hopefully we can work > all of the ideas in - e.g. combine those around IGF characteristics, > enhanced cooperation and continuation of IGF [links answers (a) to (j). > >> > >> The other six are more or less novel: > >> > >> • ICANN review and IANA contract > >> • Increased involvement of developing country participants in > shaping the agenda of the IGF, greater role for regional and national > meetings in shaping the IGF rather than the MAG > >> • Network neutrality, privacy and communication freedom over the > Internet > >> • Importance of an open and accessible Internet > >> • A Review Report (from CS) on MAG Responsibilities vs > Accountability w.r.t. UNSG mandate (which global issues resolved or what > challenges handled by IGF MAG at Global Challenges for Internet Global > Level) > >> • Free Software - Free Knowledge > >> > >> So, it appears likely that Ginger and I will speak, and that we will > focus on the themes that received the greatest support - whilst trying to at > least touch on most of them. Ginger has offered to speak first, and will > cover "involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation process". > >> > >> Graphs of these results are available on our Web site at > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/37. The exact results of "who voted for > what" will also be put online in due course. If you want to see them now, I > can send you the raw data files and you can pore through them at your > leisure. > >> > >> -- > >> Jeremy Malcolm > >> Project Coordinator > >> Consumers International > >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > >> > >> CI is 50 > >> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement > in 2010. > >> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ____________________ > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Sep 10 16:38:01 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 22:38:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Results of poll and the two IGF speeches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Bertrand and Jeremy, It may be worth noting here that the IGC speakers should also acknowledge the small but important improvements that have happened within IGF so far. We do have our set of reservations but we also must acknowledge changes towards improvements such as the adoption of IG4D as a Main Session and so forth. I do believe the basics of the WSIS Principles and Tunis Agenda with regards to IG will always remain fundamental to the IGF and that we should continue to re-emphasize what has not been recognized in the light of those and what has so far especially when we are all optimistic to renewal of its mandate for the next five years and the future in 2015 will possibly bring another final WSIS. Basically our statement should be a mix of the past, present and future while raising emerging issues and not forgetting that the current issues that have been long standing in IGF debates. References may also be made from the IGF Inventory of Best Practices. -- Fouad On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Glad to hear that clarification, Avri. I was a little troubled at the idea > that we'd be down to a lottory for the *choice* of speakers by the IGF > Secretariat --which would have made our polling completely useless, and no > sense! > > Mawaki > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> Yeup, apologies for missing that part and thanks to Avri for reminding >> that! >> >> -- Fouad >> >> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > If I may be permitted a comment on this note. >> > >> > The names are set and are posted on the web site for both the opening >> > and the closing. >> > >> > It is the order of speakers that will be subject to a lot drawing. >> > >> > a. >> > >> > On 10 Sep 2010, at 22:35, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> > >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> I have come to learn that due to a large number of responses and >> >> interest, the IGF Secretariat will also hold a draw for selecting the names >> >> of various people to speak in the opening and closing sessions of the IGF to >> >> maintain transparency at their end and have invited whoever can be present >> >> at 15:00hrs on the 13th of September 2010 in the main venue in Vilnius to >> >> participate in the draw and help draw the names in the open ballot ;o) >> >> >> >> It also remains that we are not the only ones that are invited to >> >> propose names! >> >> >> >> I also second Bertrand's suggestion. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle >> >> wrote: >> >> Dear Jeremy, dear all, >> >> >> >> I think the co-coordinators make perfect sense. and the poll method has >> >> been very useful as a thermometer. Regarding the topics, some suggestions : >> >> >> >> - I suggest that when drafting the speeches, you use the ranking of the >> >> various themes not as indication of some been kept and others dropped but >> >> rather as an indication of the length of the paragraphs that should be >> >> devoted to each : all issues are worth mentioning and the fact that gender >> >> for instance only has 12 % does not prevent from making a short paragraph >> >> about it (because it is indeed important); having two speeches allows to >> >> cover most ground >> >> - it would probably be interesting to focus the opening on the more >> >> substantive topics (UDHR, and most of the "novel ones", even if IANA or net >> >> neutrality are not completely new) in order to produce food for thought for >> >> the rest of the week. As you've often heard me say, the best way to get >> >> consensus in the IGC and to have a positive impact in the discussions is to >> >> focus on the framing of each problem and fundamental principles rather than >> >> advocating for a specific solution (as in many cases CS is not of a uniform >> >> voice). Ginger would probably be best for the opening >> >> - the closing session could focus more on procedural issues and looking >> >> forward at the future of the IGF (continuation, "improvements"), the need to >> >> preserve certain fundamental operational principles and more generally the >> >> role of the different stakeholders, in particular civil society in the >> >> upcoming enhanced cooperation discussions. Given his keen interest in those >> >> topics, I suppose Jeremy would be the most suited to it. It also leaves some >> >> time during the IGF to polish the positionning (on site and online) and take >> >> into account some of the comments and discussions that will take place. >> >> Please do not forget to include the item "congratulating the IGF" along >> >> possible recommendations for change. Even if there is ample room for >> >> improvement, this is still a fragile experiment that deserves some >> >> protection and has established (as wolfgang rightly highlighted) a pattern >> >> of interaction unavailable anywhere else. >> >> >> >> I hope this helps and trusts that we'll have a good IGF. >> >> >> >> Looking forward to seeing many of you soon. >> >> >> >> Best >> >> >> >> Bertrand >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Jeremy Malcolm >> >> wrote: >> >> The results are as follows.  128 responses were received, 117 in full >> >> and the balance in part (ie. only one of the two questions), from 463 >> >> invitations sent.  This is a response rate of 27.6%, which is reasonable by >> >> IGC standards, bearing in mind that some people are subscribed twice or more >> >> under different addresses, and that we have some lurkers, eg. from the IGF >> >> Secretariat, who do not participate in the IGC's consensus decision-making. >> >> >> >> I'll take the results question by question.  On the first question, >> >> there was a clear enough view that Ginger and I, as the IGC coordinators, >> >> should take the opening and closing slots; this was also the only choice >> >> supported by more than half the respondents.  Parminder and Wolfgang were >> >> next most common choices.  Karen Banks and Valeria Betancourt were the women >> >> who received the most support, though with less than one third of >> >> respondents for either of them. >> >> >> >> Therefore I will be recommending to the IGF Secretariat that Ginger and >> >> I speak.  If they do not agree with this, then I will suggest that Parminder >> >> and Valeria speak (although Karen received equal support, Valeria pips Karen >> >> on geographical diversity - sorry Karen). >> >> >> >> Here are the percentage breakdowns for the first question (sorry, this >> >> may look bad if your email program doesn't support HTML): >> >> >> >> Which four names should be put forward as civil society speakers? >> >> Answer        Count   Percentage >> >> Fouad Bajwa (a)        33     25.78% >> >> Fatimata Seye Sylla (b)        28     21.88% >> >> Valeria Betancourt (c)         36     28.12% >> >> Wolfgang Kleinwachter (d)      55     42.97% >> >> Parminder Jeet Singh (e)       64     50.00% >> >> Co-coordinators (Jeremy Malcolm and Ginger Paque) (f) 75       58.59% >> >> Karen Banks (g)        36     28.12% >> >> Ben Akoh (h)   17     13.28% >> >> Katitza Rodriguez (i)  32     25.00% >> >> Marilia Maciel (available for opening only) (j)       33       25.78% >> >> >> >> On the second question, the most popular answer was "Involvement of >> >> civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet governance".  There >> >> are five other answers that were also clearly more popular than the others: >> >> the development dimension of IG, the retention of the IGF's core >> >> characteristics, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the >> >> desirability of improving inclusion and participation, and the desirability >> >> that the IGF continue to evolve and innovate. >> >> >> >> Leaving aside "Other", there were only three questions that received >> >> support from less than a third of respondents: congratulating the IGF on its >> >> successes, the gender dimension and the role of dynamic coalitions.  So >> >> leaving these aside, all of the available choices of theme were quite >> >> popular. >> >> >> >> Here is the complete breakdown of responses to the second question: >> >> >> >> What are the top five themes to suggest the speakers address in their >> >> presentations? >> >> Answer        Count   Percentage >> >> Congratulating the IGF (on the completion of its first term, its >> >> innovative structure, etc.) (a)      32       25.00% >> >> Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Internet (b)    65 >> >> 50.78% >> >> Development dimension of Internet governance (c)      70       54.69% >> >> Involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation model for Internet >> >> governance (d)        78       60.94% >> >> Retention of IGF's core characteristics (multistakeholderism, openness, >> >> consultative program shaping processes) (e)   68       53.12% >> >> Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as necessary, >> >> within its non-binding mandate (f)        54       42.19% >> >> Gender dimension of Internet governance (g)    16     12.50% >> >> Desirability of improving inclusion and participation (including remote >> >> participation) at the IGF (h) 57       44.53% >> >> Role of dynamic coalitions (i)         24     18.75% >> >> Non-negotiated outputs such as "messages from" or "recommendations at" >> >> the IGF (j)    37       28.91% >> >> Other          10     7.81% >> >> >> >> Of the ten "Other" responses, four link in with other available >> >> answers: >> >> >> >>       • Desirability that IGF continue to evolve and innovate as >> >> necessary, with a modified mandate to give its outputs more weight [an >> >> extended version of answer (f)] >> >>       • An articulated, hierarchical scheme for producing consensus >> >> "messages" or "recommendations" [an extended version of answer (j)] >> >>       • Consideration of a more serious role in global net gov >> >> policymaking, building on first 5 years of talk shop [an extension of >> >> answers (f) and (j)] >> >>       • All of these are obviously important... hopefully we can work >> >> all of the ideas in - e.g. combine those around IGF characteristics, >> >> enhanced cooperation and continuation of IGF [links answers (a) to (j). >> >> >> >> The other six are more or less novel: >> >> >> >>       • ICANN review and IANA contract >> >>       • Increased involvement of developing country participants in >> >> shaping the agenda of the IGF, greater role for regional and national >> >> meetings in shaping the IGF rather than the MAG >> >>       • Network neutrality, privacy and communication freedom over the >> >> Internet >> >>       • Importance of an open and accessible Internet >> >>       • A Review Report (from CS) on MAG Responsibilities vs >> >> Accountability w.r.t. UNSG mandate (which global issues resolved or what >> >> challenges handled by IGF MAG at Global Challenges for Internet Global >> >> Level) >> >>       • Free Software - Free Knowledge >> >> >> >> So, it appears likely that Ginger and I will speak, and that we will >> >> focus on the themes that received the greatest support - whilst trying to at >> >> least touch on most of them.  Ginger has offered to speak first, and will >> >> cover "involvement of civil society in enhanced cooperation process". >> >> >> >> Graphs of these results are available on our Web site at >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/37.  The exact results of "who voted for what" >> >> will also be put online in due course.  If you want to see them now, I can >> >> send you the raw data files and you can pore through them at your leisure. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jeremy Malcolm >> >> Project Coordinator >> >> Consumers International >> >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >> >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> >> Malaysia >> >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> >> >> CI is 50 >> >> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement >> >> in 2010. >> >> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ____________________ >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Sep 11 00:26:43 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 09:56:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Results of poll and the two IGF speeches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C8B0503.9070501@itforchange.net> Hi All It is great that we were not only able to authorise our co-coordinators to speak for us in the opening and closing ceremony of the IGF, but also that the IGF secretariat was gracious enough to accommodate our request. I hope that these kinds of things, which are perhaps serendipitous opportunities, could also propel us as IGC to get stronger and more purposeful... anyway, more to the issue at hand... The following are my views on what key issues should be a part of our opening and closing session statements. While a little of IGC history and its evolution will be fine, I dont think we need to go too much into it. That would be kind of inward looking, while the opportunity here is to address the 'outside'. The history we mention would just be that kind and that much which helps people understand who we are and why we are there. In that sense using the opening parts, but also the objectives part, of our mandate too will be quite useful. We also need to remember that few things are as political as history :), and be careful in framing the 'history' of IGC. The IGC mandate on the other hand is a negotiated and voted upon text. Most of the the the should of course focus on real IF issues, that are topical. The list of issues that were voted upon give us a good basis. However, we need also to be able to put enough punch into what we say, and thus not be limited to very generic, everyone-will-agree, propositions. The shape in which the IGF will go forward after its renewal is important. Its existing core qualities have to be preserved, but it would be good to clearly suggest what kind of improvements are we looking for. UN Gen assembly session which will decide on this will take place in Oct, and a lot many governments who will take part in the proceedings will be listening at the IGF. Also, we should acknowledge the CSTD working group on IGF reform and express our desire and commitment to work closely with it. As mentioned earlier some CSTD members will be on a kind of initial fishing exercise at the IGF in this regard. On the matter of another key topical global IG issue, enhanced cooperation (EC), on which open consultations will take place later this year, I read in the top ranking that the issue that CS participation in EC got not only the procedural issue pf 'participation' but also a rather keen interest of the IGC in EC process . We should respect this vote and clearly and strongly mention that the move towards an EC process should figure out ways on how to address the urgent imperative of developing global institutions to develop global IG policies in global public interest. The process of EC, as addressing the imperative of 'developing policies' is different from the IGF process which is oriented to taking wide inputs, deliberating on options, and feeding into the policy developing processes (which largely do not exist at present, which is the major reason for some actors putting question marks on IGF's usefulness). The two processes are thus complementary though clearly distinct. In this regard we should appreciatively acknowledge the ECOSOC resolution adopted last month that makes these two points. We should also note with appreciation that the stalled process of EC is now being sought to be pushed along, as was mandated by the WSIS, through the planned open consultations later this year. We should also make the very important point that we see EC not just as a process that will address the issue of CIRS, but that it is supposed to address all global IG issues (It is a big point of contention among some, and will be discussed at length, I think, at the open consultations, and I think we should make our position clear on this. (My understanding is that in the IGC there is enough consensus that EC process is not just about CIR, but is supposed to address all global IG isuses that need addressing. This bit of accent on non-exclusive-CIR focus of global IG also comes forom the early history of IGC highlighted by Wolgang and Bill). Finally, we should not fail to mention some very topical specific IG issues leike net neutrality It is a bit of travesty that when the whole world is talking about NN vis a vis wireless Internet, the main global IG forum has no formal place for this issue on its agenda. It is for the progressive CS players to fill in such gaps, and make themselves heard loudly. We should highlight the fact that the basic architecture of the Internet may soon be compromised for ever if we do not collectively act together *now* in public interest. We should make bold to specifically mention the verizon - google deal which is being hot ly discussed by all progressive IG advocates (remember in this case that we have taken on ourselves through our mandate to channel in wider CS concerns from across the globe into IGF kind of processes). We shd then, also as per our vote results, mention the crucial role IGC has played in bringing the human rights agenda to the IGF, and about all the work that has gone into it. However, it shd be pertinent to mention here that we take as much interest in economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development as in the more often discussed civil and political rights, and we work on the principle of indivisibility of right highlighted in the opening part of WSIS dec of principles. We can perhaps mention that excellent initiative of Brazil which has uniquely taken the HR as the point of departure, which is people-centric, for making an IG policy framework rather than the typical state interest-centric and big business interest centric forom-the-top IG policy framing that is often the way it normally happens. We shd mention our efforts reg getting development issues and agenda into the IGF and how we plan to further work on it. There is a lot work ahead of us in this regard. We shd mention that developing the unique never-before infrastructure of remote participatoon at such an extensive scale as is being done at the IGF is indeed a big contribution of the civil society, and must congratulate the specific actors involved in this effort. This may be providing a new set of means and processes for openness and participation that may become the default global standard and be followed in all global policy process.... Thanks, parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Sep 11 03:12:33 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 15:12:33 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC general meeting in Vilnius, 13 September In-Reply-To: <060760D6-8754-45EF-A178-E8AF14FAD0F3@ciroap.org> References: <060760D6-8754-45EF-A178-E8AF14FAD0F3@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 07/09/2010, at 3:29 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I am arranging our usual IGC general meeting for 13 September in Vilnius. I hope to have the venue confirmed soon, but at this time, you can pencil in "Room 3, 17:30". There will be no decisions taken at the meeting, and we will summarise to the list afterwards. The above details are now confirmed save that we will commence at 18:00, in case the GigaNet meeting runs over time. There is a Remote Participation Training Workshop in room 6 which may overlap with this meeting, so my apologies for that, especially because Ginger is involved in both events - unfortunately, our scheduling options were limited. Here's a revised agenda (I've added "Opening and closing statements" and "CSTD IGF review"): * Review of activities since last meeting * Opening and closing statements * IGC co-coordinator elections * IGC voting procedures * IGC charter review * MAG questionnaire * CSTD IGF review * General business -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 mueller at syr.edu Sat Sep 11 09:14:17 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 09:14:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] What is RPKI and why should you care about it? Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F751@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> One of the things I notice repeatedly about Internet governance is that civil society concerns about rights, governance and representation tend to lag far behind technical and infrastructural decisions. Those technical and architectural decisions often set the parameters around which we have to work. Too often, civil society intervenes too late, the basic structure is already set in place. What's needed is for technical expertise to become more integrated with a political, rights-oriented way of thinking. But that requires better and current knowledge about what is going on technically. That's the rationale behind our Workshop on "Routing and Resource Certification." It's about the resource public key infrastructure (RPKI) being proposed and implemented to secure the Internet's routing and addressing system. It could have a profound effect on the future of the internet and on the rights of ISPs and their users. The workshop, co-organized by the IGP and LACNIC/NRO, will be held on Tuesday, September 14 from 9:00-11:00 EEST (6:00-8:00 UTC) in Room 5 of the LITEXPO facility. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2010View&wspid=158 IGP has prepared a background paper on this topic, which can be downloaded here: http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/RPKI-VilniusIGPfinal.pdf Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.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 Sat Sep 11 09:36:31 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 09:36:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C859323.3030902@cafonso.ca> <4C85955D.8010504@gmx.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFBF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F754@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Ah, the ITU bogeyman again. A bit of history for those who forgot it: ITU in 1997 lost their attempt to gain control of domain names (when ISOC was their co-conspirator); from 2003-2005 it failed to get any recognition of their role out of WGIG or WSIS; in 2009-10 they are rebuffed in the quest to form a competing, alternative ipv6 address registry. And now we are supposed to be paralytically afraid of having a meeting in NYC because that is what the ITU wants? There were those who, in 2003, said that Internet governance should be insulated from WSIS for the same reason. But we took the battle into it and we pretty much won. Better to engage win than to avoid. More seriously, we need to stop obsessing about "ITU" as an actor and focus instead on the nation-states who drive its agenda, and the conflict between the intergovernmental system and the nongovernmental or uni-governmental system behind ICANN. That is the real issue. Note also that the USA, Europe and the business interests become very "governmental" and "intergovernmental" when it suits their interests (ACTA, anyone? Cybersecurity?) --MM From: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] This is not a trivial issue of a choice in a tourism destination, but a question of participation in a summit that sets the next course of Internet Governance. The strategic implications of this move (to UN, NY) relates to ITU's business ambitions for an enhanced role in Internet Governance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sat Sep 11 09:38:11 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 09:38:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F755@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> This I could support. > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > ICANN is travelling around the world doing outreach, IGF is travelling > around the world doing outreach, why the WSIS Forum, which needs > outreach, should stay in traditional places? The "Annual WSIS Forum" > should travel - between 2011 and 2015 - around the world to the five > regions and come back as "WSIS III" in 2015 to a more neutral place. > Istanbul. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 11 13:47:04 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 13:47:04 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <4C50FF8D-DB71-445C-B188-3EBFD5E885FE@marzouki.info> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFB8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <65BD3AE3-D112-4C6E-997B-85D2B04CBD23@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992239E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070B4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4C50FF8D-DB71-445C-B188-3EBFD5E885FE@marzouki.info> Message-ID: Yeah... no, ITU involvement in WSIS wasn't an accident. WSIS wouldn't have seen the light of day were it not for the ITU's resolution at the 1998 plenipotentiary conference in Minneapolis (which then led to the related UN General Assembly's resolution in 2001). And as far as the UN system as a whole, ITU is the home and the linchpin of the summit, which is not to say other UN orgs./bodies do not make decisions related to WSIS and its follow-up in terms of their respective responsibilities. It'd be a little bit of stretch to think that because IGF is the summit's most substantial outcome, it exhausts or fulfills the whole of WSIS agenda as per its intergovernmental origins. So I agree with Meryem that each one of those arrangements has their specific goal commanding different strategies. Obviously if ITU wants to see the WSIS Forum held at UN-HQ it probably not for the excitement of a visit at "the Big Apple" but more likely because they hope to mobilize UN resources to achieve something, notwithstanding the price of sacrificing a bit of CS participation (in quantity). Let's also not forget that NYC is the single capital where (due to UN) the largest diplomatic body from across the world is concentrated or converges (sorry, that's not the case for Geneva as some may want to believe). And although we're getting used to "multistakeholderism," the UN's GA -- where those diplomats convene, discuss, negotiate and vote -- is still the ultimate authoritative body to make decisions before anything of a global legitimacy (exit, the security council) is enacted in the name of the UN. So it may also just be that at a critical juncture when important decisions may have to be made by all or a large section of those diplomats about WSIS, it is simple pragmatism to secure their participation and a chance for them to fully understand the issues (now, that may not justify a *permanent* transfer to NYC, see last paragr. below). CS can still do two things: i) strategize in order to get its inclusively prepared quality input through, wherever a relevant meeting takes place --especially for a crucial one as may be the 2011's WSIS Forum; ii) continuously voice the need to take special/additional measures to facilitate visas for a global CS to the meetings. Propositions could also be made as a compromise between ITU's current choice and Wolfgang's suggestion: 1. alternate every year between the chosen UN base and other places around the world; 2. rotate around the world with the possibility any year to host it back at UN HQ or in other UN capital if the agenda and schedule of international affairs make the venue potentially favorable to the Forum's order of business; 3. rotate between UN capitals; 4. etcetera. Best, Mawaki On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > Le 7 sept. 10 à 08:25, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : > > > ICANN is travelling around the world doing outreach, IGF is travelling >> around the world doing outreach, why the WSIS Forum, which needs outreach, >> should stay in traditional places? >> > > Because, and this is obvious, they are of a different nature and they have > different objectives. > > - ICANN is a private organization which attendance is mainly corporate > business organizations, and has the needed money to bring some CS on board > (seatbelt fastened). > > - IGF is still an UFO (institutionally speaking) which raison d'etre is > heavily relying on CS (and IGOs). Conversely, CS and IGOs find it the unique > place where they may rise their profile in the IG and related fields. > Both ICANN and IGF, in order to justify the necessity of their existence > and unicity, *have* to reach out to (or to organize meetings in, at least) > different countries [on a side note, who can seriously state that IGF 2009 > has changed anything in Egypt re: IG matters?] > > - WSIS Forum is the (recently) institutionalized follow-up to WSIS, which > was, if I'm not wrong, a UN intergovernmental process led by the ITU (and > this was by no mean an accident, contrarily to what someone said on this > list). Since the end of WSIS, well before becoming the "WSIS Forum", it has > been struggling for its existence and necessity and for taking over the > other two. Now, what it needs is certainly not to travel around the world, > but to seat itself as such at the UN headquarters (which is in NYC). > > ICANN showing its own well know problems, and considering the fact that > whether it travels around the world or not, this doesn't change the essence > of the organization and its decisions, let's talk about IGF and WSIS Forum: > > The former is more inclusive, but is toothless, the latter is likely to > mainstream IG issues and make decisions, but is above all an > intergovernmental process, in pure UN sense. > CS may be part of both, but probably not showing the same profile (and > consequently not the same framing of issues) at each venue. It's not > necessarily about the height of this profile, but really about its > orientation (susbtance) and its nature (mainly CSOs or mainly individuals). > > In my opinion, there is the strategic choice. Not in counting CS > participation from different countries at one venue or the other. > > As regards IGOs, they can survive (in this field) only at IGF. > > 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 marilynscade at hotmail.com Sat Sep 11 15:15:15 2010 From: marilynscade at hotmail.com (Marilyn Cade ) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 19:15:15 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 Message-ID: Having attended four Action line forums, and supported the consolidation into a week in GVA, I wld prefer to keep the correct title - WSIS Action Line Forum-- it is after not the WSIS Forum, regardless of the hope of some to make it so, and try to turn it into a different outcome of Tunis than it is. Maybe we should focus more intently -- all of us -- on encouraging the other three major co facilatators of action lines to stand up and play an equal coordinating role and sponsorship role. As they were trying to do in the 2010 WSIS 'Action line' Forum in May. The action lines are about hightlighting "on ground" efforts, and the purpose of the role of facilatators seems to being lost, perhaps accidently or ... Perhaps due to expediency... But needs to return. The last Action line forum in GVA in May was a better example of collaboration and spotlight sharing across the four UN agencies and had some great examples of successes and activities "on ground/national level" relevant to the Action Lines. I do not support moving to NY Hdqtrs. Would be btr to host at UNESCO, or again in GVA. As to rotating about the world - actually there is benefit to organizing in conjunction w the May IGF consultation and CSTD meetings, and that synergy gets lost. But of more signficance is losing the purpose of the "action lines" themselves, and sacrificing the focus on networking, leveraging best practices and sharing and building relationships that can advance the achievements in action lines for political agendas. Locating space with multiple rooms, display area, large plen room, etc, takes staff time. Rotating actually adds to burden of admintration, eating away at resourced that shld focus on identifyong participants for each action line.... Having attended events both in GVA at all the UN agencies (by now) and also NY UN headquarters, the space, flexibility at headquarters just isn't there. It is simply a fact. And not a criticism of UN hdqts. Is a lovely set of buildings. Was just there for GAID. I am concerned about getting a week of suitable space (several rooms) at headquarters-- seems overly challenging. Every time I have participated in events there, space is at a premium and getting space over five days for breakouts, action line sessions simultaneously seems improbable. Perhaps that was not yet factored into the proposal, or perhaps we need to raise the concerns. It is a risk that the shift will change the Sessions - to make this into more of an intergovernmental high level set of speeches. I am not confident that will advance the purpose of the Action line Forum. Marilyn Cade Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Mawaki Chango Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 17:47:04 To: ; Subject: Re: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 Yeah... no, ITU involvement in WSIS wasn't an accident. WSIS wouldn't have seen the light of day were it not for the ITU's resolution at the 1998 plenipotentiary conference in Minneapolis (which then led to the related UN General Assembly's resolution in 2001). And as far as the UN system as a whole, ITU is the home and the linchpin of the summit, which is not to say other UN orgs./bodies do not make decisions related to WSIS and its follow-up in terms of their respective responsibilities. It'd be a little bit of stretch to think that because IGF is the summit's most substantial outcome, it exhausts or fulfills the whole of WSIS agenda as per its intergovernmental origins.  So I agree with Meryem that each one of those arrangements has their specific goal commanding different strategies. Obviously if ITU wants to see the WSIS Forum held at UN-HQ it probably not for the excitement of a visit at "the Big Apple" but more likely because they hope to mobilize UN resources to achieve something, notwithstanding the price of sacrificing a bit of CS participation (in quantity).  Let's also not forget that NYC is the single capital where (due to UN) the largest diplomatic body from across the world is concentrated or converges (sorry, that's not the case for Geneva as some may want to believe). And although we're getting used to "multistakeholderism," the UN's GA -- where those diplomats convene, discuss, negotiate and vote -- is still the ultimate authoritative body to make decisions before anything of a global legitimacy (exit, the security council) is enacted in the name of the UN. So it may also just be that at a critical juncture when important decisions may have to be made by all or a large section of those diplomats about WSIS, it is simple pragmatism to secure their participation and a chance for them to fully understand the issues (now, that may not justify a *permanent* transfer to NYC, see last paragr. below). CS can still do two things: i) strategize in order to get its inclusively prepared quality input through, wherever a relevant meeting takes place --especially for a crucial one as may be the 2011's WSIS Forum; ii) continuously voice the need to take special/additional measures to facilitate visas for a global CS to the meetings.  Propositions could also be made as a compromise between ITU's current choice and Wolfgang's suggestion: 1. alternate every year between the chosen UN base and other places around the world; 2. rotate around the world with the possibility any year to host it back at UN HQ or in other UN capital if the agenda and schedule of international affairs make the venue potentially favorable to the Forum's order of business; 3. rotate between UN capitals; 4. etcetera. Best, Mawaki On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Meryem Marzouki > wrote: Le 7 sept. 10 à 08:25, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : ICANN is travelling around the world doing outreach, IGF is travelling around the world doing outreach, why the WSIS Forum, which needs outreach, should stay in traditional places? Because, and this is obvious, they are of a different nature and they have different objectives. - ICANN is a private organization which attendance is mainly corporate business organizations, and has the needed money to bring some CS on board (seatbelt fastened). - IGF is still an UFO (institutionally speaking) which raison d'etre is heavily relying on CS (and IGOs). Conversely, CS and IGOs find it the unique place where they may rise their profile in the IG and related fields. Both ICANN and IGF, in order to justify the necessity of their existence and unicity, *have* to reach out to (or to organize meetings in, at least) different countries [on a side note, who can seriously state that IGF 2009 has changed anything in Egypt re: IG matters?] - WSIS Forum is the (recently) institutionalized follow-up to WSIS, which was, if I'm not wrong, a UN intergovernmental process led by the ITU (and this was by no mean an accident, contrarily to what someone said on this list). Since the end of WSIS, well before becoming the "WSIS Forum", it has been struggling for its existence and necessity and for taking over the other two. Now, what it needs is certainly not to travel around the world, but to seat itself as such at the UN headquarters (which is in NYC). ICANN showing its own well know problems, and considering the fact that whether it travels around the world or not, this doesn't change the essence of the organization and its decisions, let's talk about IGF and WSIS Forum: The former is more inclusive, but is toothless, the latter is likely to mainstream IG issues and make decisions, but is above all an intergovernmental process, in pure UN sense. CS may be part of both, but probably not showing the same profile (and consequently not the same framing of issues) at each venue. It's not necessarily about the height of this profile, but really about its orientation (susbtance) and its nature (mainly CSOs or mainly individuals). In my opinion, there is the strategic choice. Not in counting CS participation from different countries at one venue or the other. As regards IGOs, they can survive (in this field) only at IGF. 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 Sat Sep 11 16:31:40 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 16:31:40 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFF7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, As the GAID meeting the other week bounced from room to room @UN HQ, I believe Marilyn's warning about how the premium on space at UN HQ may interfere with a smooth meeting. Which does not change Mawaki's hypothesis: ITU wants to be in NY - and UN HQ staff/diplomats agreed - because ITU wants visibility and UN diplomat types want to learn more about ICTs and development. Because heads of state/UN ambassadors (finally) realize icts/bband/Internet are important for reaching Millennium Development Goals. A suggested cs strategy: give them what they want. Like CS's toehold into OECD thanks to CSISAC establishment, let's change NY next - if that's where meeting ends up. Instead of worrying about venue and room logistics headaches, my 2 cents are we should fight mainly for multi-stakeholder participation. Strategic issue is - how far can we push in next phase, a proper participatory/cs-inclusive model, not just rhetorically but in practice. Lee ________________________________________ From: Marilyn Cade [marilynscade at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 3:15 PM To: Mawaki Chango ; governance at lists.cpsr.org ; meryem at marzouki.info Subject: Re: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 Having attended four Action line forums, and supported the consolidation into a week in GVA, I wld prefer to keep the correct title - WSIS Action Line Forum-- it is after not the WSIS Forum, regardless of the hope of some to make it so, and try to turn it into a egic outcome of Tunis than it is. Maybe we should focus more intently -- all of us -- on encouraging the other three major co facilatators of action lines to stand up and play an equal coordinating role and sponsorship role. As they were trying to do in the 2010 WSIS 'Action line' Forum in May. The action lines are about hightlighting "on ground" efforts, and the purpose of the role of facilatators seems to being lost, perhaps accidently or ... Perhaps due to expediency... But needs to return. The last Action line forum in GVA in May was a better example of collaboration and spotlight sharing across the four UN agencies and had some great examples of successes and activities "on ground/national level" relevant to the Action Lines. I do not support moving to NY Hdqtrs. Would be btr to host at UNESCO, or again in GVA. As to rotating about the world - actually there is benefit to organizing in conjunction w the May IGF consultation and CSTD meetings, and that synergy gets lost. But of more signficance is losing the purpose of the "action lines" themselves, and sacrificing the focus on networking, leveraging best practices and sharing and building relationships that can advance the achievements in action lines for political agendas. Locating space with multiple rooms, display area, large plen room, etc, takes staff time. Rotating actually adds to burden of admintration, eating away at resourced that shld focus on identifyong participants for each action line.... Having attended events both in GVA at all the UN agencies (by now) and also NY UN headquarters, the space, flexibility at headquarters just isn't there. It is simply a fact. And not a criticism of UN hdqts. Is a lovely set of buildings. Was just there for GAID. I am concerned about getting a week of suitable space (several rooms) at headquarters-- seems overly challenging. Every time I have participated in events there, space is at a premium and getting space over five days for breakouts, action line sessions simultaneously seems improbable. Perhaps that was not yet factored into the proposal, or perhaps we need to raise the concerns. It is a risk that the shift will change the Sessions - to make this into more of an intergovernmental high level set of speeches. I am not confident that will advance the purpose of the Action line Forum. Marilyn Cade Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Mawaki Chango Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 17:47:04 To: ; Subject: Re: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 Yeah... no, ITU involvement in WSIS wasn't an accident. WSIS wouldn't have seen the light of day were it not for the ITU's resolution at the 1998 plenipotentiary conference in Minneapolis (which then led to the related UN General Assembly's resolution in 2001). And as far as the UN system as a whole, ITU is the home and the linchpin of the summit, which is not to say other UN orgs./bodies do not make decisions related to WSIS and its follow-up in terms of their respective responsibilities. It'd be a little bit of stretch to think that because IGF is the summit's most substantial outcome, it exhausts or fulfills the whole of WSIS agenda as per its intergovernmental origins. So I agree with Meryem that each one of those arrangements has their specific goal commanding different strategies. Obviously if ITU wants to see the WSIS Forum held at UN-HQ it probably not for the excitement of a visit at "the Big Apple" but more likely because they hope to mobilize UN resources to achieve something, notwithstanding the price of sacrificing a bit of CS participation (in quantity). Let's also not forget that NYC is the single capital where (due to UN) the largest diplomatic body from across the world is concentrated or converges (sorry, that's not the case for Geneva as some may want to believe). And although we're getting used to "multistakeholderism," the UN's GA -- where those diplomats convene, discuss, negotiate and vote -- is still the ultimate authoritative body to make decisions before anything of a global legitimacy (exit, the security council) is enacted in the name of the UN. So it may also just be that at a critical juncture when important decisions may have to be made by all or a large section of those diplomats about WSIS, it is simple pragmatism to secure their participation and a chance for them to fully understand the issues (now, that may not justify a *permanent* transfer to NYC, see last paragr. below). CS can still do two things: i) strategize in order to get its inclusively prepared quality input through, wherever a relevant meeting takes place --especially for a crucial one as may be the 2011's WSIS Forum; ii) continuously voice the need to take special/additional measures to facilitate visas for a global CS to the meetings. Propositions could also be made as a compromise between ITU's current choice and Wolfgang's suggestion: 1. alternate every year between the chosen UN base and other places around the world; 2. rotate around the world with the possibility any year to host it back at UN HQ or in other UN capital if the agenda and schedule of international affairs make the venue potentially favorable to the Forum's order of business; 3. rotate between UN capitals; 4. etcetera. Best, Mawaki On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Meryem Marzouki > wrote: Le 7 sept. 10 à 08:25, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : ICANN is travelling around the world doing outreach, IGF is travelling around the world doing outreach, why the WSIS Forum, which needs outreach, should stay in traditional places? Because, and this is obvious, they are of a different nature and they have different objectives. - ICANN is a private organization which attendance is mainly corporate business organizations, and has the needed money to bring some CS on board (seatbelt fastened). - IGF is still an UFO (institutionally speaking) which raison d'etre is heavily relying on CS (and IGOs). Conversely, CS and IGOs find it the unique place where they may rise their profile in the IG and related fields. Both ICANN and IGF, in order to justify the necessity of their existence and unicity, *have* to reach out to (or to organize meetings in, at least) different countries [on a side note, who can seriously state that IGF 2009 has changed anything in Egypt re: IG matters?] - WSIS Forum is the (recently) institutionalized follow-up to WSIS, which was, if I'm not wrong, a UN intergovernmental process led by the ITU (and this was by no mean an accident, contrarily to what someone said on this list). Since the end of WSIS, well before becoming the "WSIS Forum", it has been struggling for its existence and necessity and for taking over the other two. Now, what it needs is certainly not to travel around the world, but to seat itself as such at the UN headquarters (which is in NYC). ICANN showing its own well know problems, and considering the fact that whether it travels around the world or not, this doesn't change the essence of the organization and its decisions, let's talk about IGF and WSIS Forum: The former is more inclusive, but is toothless, the latter is likely to mainstream IG issues and make decisions, but is above all an intergovernmental process, in pure UN sense. CS may be part of both, but probably not showing the same profile (and consequently not the same framing of issues) at each venue. It's not necessarily about the height of this profile, but really about its orientation (susbtance) and its nature (mainly CSOs or mainly individuals). In my opinion, there is the strategic choice. Not in counting CS participation from different countries at one venue or the other. As regards IGOs, they can survive (in this field) only at IGF. 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sat Sep 11 18:38:29 2010 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 23:38:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Invitation Message-ID: <4C26AF32BBA04D299578F1D818674760@MTBJ> Français ci-dessous ---------------------------- Dear all, You are kindly invited to participate (physically or remotely) in the workshop organized by AFRALO in the IGF Vilnius venue. Workshop #: 61 Theme: New gTLDs and IDNs for Development Date: Tuesday 14 September 2010 Time slot: 09:00 - 11:00 Venue: Room 3 Panellists: Bertrand de la Chapelle (France) Khadija Gariani (Arab ICT Organization) Zahid Jamil (Pakistan) Elaine Pruis (USA) Mohamed El Bashir (Qatar) Aziz Hilali (ISOC Morocco) Moderators Fatimata Seye Sylla (Moderator) Olivier Crepin Leblond (Remote moderator) ---------------------------- Chers tous, Vous êtes cordialement invites à participer activement (physiquement ou à distance) au workshop organisé par AFRALO dans les lieux de l’IGF Vilnius. N° du Workshop : 61 Thème : Nouveaux gTLD et IDN pour le développement Date : Mardi 14 Septembre 2010 Créneau horaire : 09:00 - 11:00 Lieu : Salle 3 Panelistes : Bertrand de la Chapelle (France) Khadija Gariani (Arab ICT Organization) Zahid Jamil (Pakistan) Elaine Pruis (USA) Mohamed El Bashir (Qatar) Aziz Hilali (ISOC Maroc) Modérateurs : Fatimata Seye Sylla (Modératrice) Olivier Crepin Leblond (Modérateur à distance) ------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Président de la CIC Fédération Mondiale des Organisations d'Ingénieurs Tél : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 11 20:27:52 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 17:27:52 -0700 Subject: [governance] What is RPKI and why should you care about it? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F751@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F751@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4C8C1E88.6060204@cavebear.com> On 09/11/2010 06:14 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > That’s the rationale behind our Workshop on “Routing and Resource > Certification.” It’s about the resource public key infrastructure (RPKI) > being proposed and implemented to secure the Internet's routing and > addressing system. You are right in saying that those are significant matters - matters that could give, in the extreme case, the power to turn-off certain parts of the net (or rather, turn off information needed for packets flowing *to* certain parts of the net to find their way.) You say the Internet's routing and addressing system" - I note the use of the singular form. In practice there is not a single routing system - there are fairly standard protocols (most particularly BGP) but those are carrier-to-carrier rather than a unified mesh. And there is an overlay of unilateral, bi-lateral, and multi-lateral agreements (human agreements turned into router configuration settings) that overlay the information that is moved by things like BGP. And, of course, we are seeing a trend in which large content providers (like Google) have their own private networks that they hook directly to large edge network providers (such as Comcast) thus bypassing intermediate carriers. Like fake-source email there is a problem with false or improper announcements of routing information. (I'm dealing with that kind of problem myself - someone to whom I lent some address space some years ago is refusing to stop advertising his use of the space - that suggests that the issue goes deeper than "false identity" and can reach to whether the entity announcing routing information is empowered to do so.) Regarding the other use of the singular form to "addressing" - with the increasing use of network address translation (there is even demand for it in IPv6) it is becoming increasingly hard to say which is the dog and which is the tail - is the "public" IP address space becoming merely a means to connect "private" address spaces? I ask that latter question with an intent to suggest that we might see a future internet that is more "lumpy" than we see today. The end-to-end principle may fade and be replaced by an internet in which rather than packets flowing unvexed end-to-end we see certain applications being bridged across boundaries that vanilla IP packets can not leap. In other words the internet may evolve from being a seamless IP packet transport and become something more like the mobile telephone networks - certain basic features will work across providers but only because the providers build explicit (although often hidden from user view) bridges among themselves. I have been slowly writing a note on how our perception of the internet is changing. We who have been on the net for a long time tend to view it as a means of moving IP packets from one IP address to another. Yet most people who have come to the net since, say 1995, tend to view the net not as a means of packet exchange but, rather, as a platform for certain applications. That shift of perception, from packet-mesh to application-platform, radically changes our view of what is important to preserve on the net and also changes the points where pressure may be applied for purposes of imposing regulation/governance or creating anti-competitive regimes. --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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Sep 11 21:23:47 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 04:23:47 +0300 Subject: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFF7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFF7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear All, I find the advocacy for the venues, interesting. I am from Fiji Islands and found that the Shengan visas relatively easy to acquire. I know what it's like to be "Searched" and advised me that I needed to consent to being searched or not fly at all it was'nt a European Airport or American Airport but an Australian Airport where I was told that my forefathers were cannibals...because I wanted to catch my next flight, I did not make a scene. Terror and the fear of terror has impact on national policies that translate into interjurisdictional policy. Sadly sometimes, translate and carry the weight of some prejudices and biases. Terrorism is something that affects all of mankind but the manner and not just some people groups. Either way from the Pacific, since we are in the Southern Hemisphere, it would mean that we would travel equal distances either way and still pay alot. Maybe, they should have a cost analysis study, complete with benchmarking air travel costs, identification of stakeholder partcipation and what cross sectional representative percentage margins the WSIS would wish represented or deem acceptable and then make the decision. The study would no doubt be rational, transparent and whilst people will always have their say but the welfare of the entire Forum would be taken into consideration as well as considering how we can equitably share resources etc. Warm Regards from the cold hotel lobby in Vinius, Sala On 9/11/10, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > As the GAID meeting the other week bounced from room to room @UN HQ, I > believe Marilyn's warning about how the premium on space at UN HQ may interfere > with a smooth meeting. > > Which does not change Mawaki's hypothesis: ITU wants to be in NY - and UN HQ > staff/diplomats agreed - because ITU wants visibility and UN diplomat types > want to learn more about ICTs and development. > > Because heads of state/UN ambassadors (finally) realize icts/bband/Internet > are important for reaching Millennium Development Goals. > > A suggested cs strategy: give them what they want. > > Like CS's toehold into OECD thanks to CSISAC establishment, let's change NY > next - if that's where meeting ends up. > > Instead of worrying about venue and room logistics headaches, my 2 cents are > we should fight mainly for multi-stakeholder participation. > > Strategic issue is - how far can we push in next phase, a proper > participatory/cs-inclusive model, not just rhetorically but in practice. > > Lee > > ________________________________________ > From: Marilyn Cade [marilynscade at hotmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 3:15 PM > To: Mawaki Chango ; governance at lists.cpsr.org ; meryem at marzouki.info > Subject: Re: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 > > Having attended four Action line forums, and supported the consolidation > into a week in GVA, I wld prefer to keep the correct title - WSIS Action > Line Forum-- it is after not the WSIS Forum, regardless of the hope of some > to make it so, and try to turn it into a egic outcome of Tunis than it is. > Maybe we should focus more intently -- all of us -- on encouraging the other > three major co facilatators of action lines to stand up and play an equal > coordinating role and sponsorship role. > As they were trying to do in the 2010 WSIS 'Action line' Forum in May. > > The action lines are about hightlighting "on ground" efforts, and the > purpose of the role of facilatators seems to being lost, perhaps accidently > or ... Perhaps due to expediency... But needs to return. The last Action > line forum in GVA in May was a better example of collaboration and spotlight > sharing across the four UN agencies and had some great examples of successes > and activities "on ground/national level" relevant to the Action Lines. > > I do not support moving to NY Hdqtrs. Would be btr to host at UNESCO, or > again in GVA. > > As to rotating about the world - actually there is benefit to organizing in > conjunction w the May IGF consultation and CSTD meetings, and that synergy > gets lost. But of more signficance is losing the purpose of the "action > lines" themselves, and sacrificing the focus on networking, leveraging best > practices and sharing and building relationships that can advance the > achievements in action lines for political agendas. > > > Locating space with multiple rooms, display area, large plen room, etc, > takes staff time. Rotating actually adds to burden of admintration, eating > away at resourced that shld focus on identifyong participants for each > action line.... > > Having attended events both in GVA at all the UN agencies (by now) and also > NY UN headquarters, the space, flexibility at headquarters just isn't there. > It is simply a fact. And not a criticism of UN hdqts. Is a lovely set of > buildings. Was just there for GAID. > > I am concerned about getting a week of suitable space (several rooms) at > headquarters-- seems overly challenging. Every time I have participated in > events there, space is at a premium and getting space over five days for > breakouts, action line sessions simultaneously seems improbable. Perhaps > that was not yet factored into the proposal, or perhaps we need to raise the > concerns. It is a risk that the shift will change the Sessions - to make > this into more of an intergovernmental high level set of speeches. I am not > confident that will advance the purpose of the Action line Forum. > > Marilyn Cade > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mawaki Chango > Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 17:47:04 > To: ; > Subject: Re: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 > > Yeah... no, ITU involvement in WSIS wasn't an accident. WSIS wouldn't have > seen the light of day were it not for the ITU's resolution at the 1998 > plenipotentiary conference in Minneapolis (which then led to the related UN > General Assembly's resolution in 2001). And as far as the UN system as a > whole, ITU is the home and the linchpin of the summit, which is not to say > other UN orgs./bodies do not make decisions related to WSIS and its > follow-up in terms of their respective responsibilities. It'd be a little > bit of stretch to think that because IGF is the summit's most substantial > outcome, it exhausts or fulfills the whole of WSIS agenda as per its > intergovernmental origins. > > > So I agree with Meryem that each one of those arrangements has their > specific goal commanding different strategies. Obviously if ITU wants to see > the WSIS Forum held at UN-HQ it probably not for the excitement of a visit > at "the Big Apple" but more likely because they hope to mobilize UN > resources to achieve something, notwithstanding the price of sacrificing a > bit of CS participation (in quantity). > > > Let's also not forget that NYC is the single capital where (due to UN) the > largest diplomatic body from across the world is concentrated or converges > (sorry, that's not the case for Geneva as some may want to believe). And > although we're getting used to "multistakeholderism," the UN's GA -- where > those diplomats convene, discuss, negotiate and vote -- is still the > ultimate authoritative body to make decisions before anything of a global > legitimacy (exit, the security council) is enacted in the name of the UN. So > it may also just be that at a critical juncture when important decisions may > have to be made by all or a large section of those diplomats about WSIS, it > is simple pragmatism to secure their participation and a chance for them to > fully understand the issues (now, that may not justify a *permanent* > transfer to NYC, see last paragr. below). > > > CS can still do two things: i) strategize in order to get its inclusively > prepared quality input through, wherever a relevant meeting takes place > --especially for a crucial one as may be the 2011's WSIS Forum; ii) > continuously voice the need to take special/additional measures to > facilitate visas for a global CS to the meetings. > > > Propositions could also be made as a compromise between ITU's current choice > and Wolfgang's suggestion: 1. alternate every year between the chosen UN > base and other places around the world; 2. rotate around the world with the > possibility any year to host it back at UN HQ or in other UN capital if the > agenda and schedule of international affairs make the venue potentially > favorable to the Forum's order of business; 3. rotate between UN capitals; > 4. etcetera. > > > Best, > Mawaki > > > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Meryem Marzouki > wrote: > > Le 7 sept. 10 à 08:25, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : > > > ICANN is travelling around the world doing outreach, IGF is travelling > around the world doing outreach, why the WSIS Forum, which needs outreach, > should stay in traditional places? > > Because, and this is obvious, they are of a different nature and they have > different objectives. > > - ICANN is a private organization which attendance is mainly corporate > business organizations, and has the needed money to bring some CS on board > (seatbelt fastened). > > - IGF is still an UFO (institutionally speaking) which raison d'etre is > heavily relying on CS (and IGOs). Conversely, CS and IGOs find it the unique > place where they may rise their profile in the IG and related fields. > Both ICANN and IGF, in order to justify the necessity of their existence > and unicity, *have* to reach out to (or to organize meetings in, at least) > different countries [on a side note, who can seriously state that IGF 2009 > has changed anything in Egypt re: IG matters?] > > - WSIS Forum is the (recently) institutionalized follow-up to WSIS, which > was, if I'm not wrong, a UN intergovernmental process led by the ITU (and > this was by no mean an accident, contrarily to what someone said on this > list). Since the end of WSIS, well before becoming the "WSIS Forum", it has > been struggling for its existence and necessity and for taking over the > other two. Now, what it needs is certainly not to travel around the world, > but to seat itself as such at the UN headquarters (which is in NYC). > > ICANN showing its own well know problems, and considering the fact that > whether it travels around the world or not, this doesn't change the essence > of the organization and its decisions, let's talk about IGF and WSIS Forum: > > The former is more inclusive, but is toothless, the latter is likely to > mainstream IG issues and make decisions, but is above all an > intergovernmental process, in pure UN sense. > CS may be part of both, but probably not showing the same profile (and > consequently not the same framing of issues) at each venue. It's not > necessarily about the height of this profile, but really about its > orientation (susbtance) and its nature (mainly CSOs or mainly individuals). > > In my opinion, there is the strategic choice. Not in counting CS > participation from different countries at one venue or the other. > > As regards IGOs, they can survive (in this field) only at IGF. > > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 gpaque at gmail.com Sun Sep 12 02:38:40 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 02:08:40 -0430 Subject: [governance] Engage Remotely, Connect Locally ... The IGF comes to you... Message-ID: <4C8C7570.8000200@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 mueller at syr.edu Sun Sep 12 03:12:41 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 03:12:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] What is RPKI and why should you care about it? In-Reply-To: <4C8C1E88.6060204@cavebear.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F751@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C8C1E88.6060204@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F769@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> These are good observations, Karl. It is good that you see the relevance of these issues. The IGF itself has had a hard time doing that. Note that our workshop is not listed as a feeder into the critical internet resources main session. This is not because routing-addressing are not vital to CIR, but because no one in the MAG was far sighted enough to view these issues as critical. As usual, they will wait until something blows up in their face and it's too late to do anything about it before they officially recognize routing as a major issue. The term "system" does not necessarily imply the singularity you are asserting. A system is nothing more than a set of interrelated components; one can speak of the "economic system," the "price system" and so on without implying any centralization of authority. > -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] > Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 8:28 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] What is RPKI and why should you care about it? > > On 09/11/2010 06:14 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > That's the rationale behind our Workshop on "Routing and Resource > > Certification." It's about the resource public key infrastructure > (RPKI) > > being proposed and implemented to secure the Internet's routing and > > addressing system. > > You are right in saying that those are significant matters - matters > that could give, in the extreme case, the power to turn-off certain > parts of the net (or rather, turn off information needed for packets > flowing *to* certain parts of the net to find their way.) > > You say the Internet's routing and addressing system" - I note the use > of the singular form. In practice there is not a single routing system > - there are fairly standard protocols (most particularly BGP) but those > are carrier-to-carrier rather than a unified mesh. And there is an > overlay of unilateral, bi-lateral, and multi-lateral agreements (human > agreements turned into router configuration settings) that overlay the > information that is moved by things like BGP. And, of course, we are > seeing a trend in which large content providers (like Google) have their > own private networks that they hook directly to large edge network > providers (such as Comcast) thus bypassing intermediate carriers. > > Like fake-source email there is a problem with false or improper > announcements of routing information. (I'm dealing with that kind of > problem myself - someone to whom I lent some address space some years > ago is refusing to stop advertising his use of the space - that suggests > that the issue goes deeper than "false identity" and can reach to > whether the entity announcing routing information is empowered to do > so.) > > Regarding the other use of the singular form to "addressing" - with the > increasing use of network address translation (there is even demand for > it in IPv6) it is becoming increasingly hard to say which is the dog and > which is the tail - is the "public" IP address space becoming merely a > means to connect "private" address spaces? > > I ask that latter question with an intent to suggest that we might see a > future internet that is more "lumpy" than we see today. The end-to-end > principle may fade and be replaced by an internet in which rather than > packets flowing unvexed end-to-end we see certain applications being > bridged across boundaries that vanilla IP packets can not leap. In > other words the internet may evolve from being a seamless IP packet > transport and become something more like the mobile telephone networks - > certain basic features will work across providers but only because the > providers build explicit (although often hidden from user view) bridges > among themselves. > > I have been slowly writing a note on how our perception of the internet > is changing. We who have been on the net for a long time tend to view > it as a means of moving IP packets from one IP address to another. Yet > most people who have come to the net since, say 1995, tend to view the > net not as a means of packet exchange but, rather, as a platform for > certain applications. > > That shift of perception, from packet-mesh to application-platform, > radically changes our view of what is important to preserve on the net > and also changes the points where pressure may be applied for purposes > of imposing regulation/governance or creating anti-competitive regimes. > > --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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Sep 12 04:11:48 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 10:11:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Invitation In-Reply-To: <6E054886DB744125B50DEF7E04F012D4@MTBJ> References: <6E054886DB744125B50DEF7E04F012D4@MTBJ> Message-ID: Bonjour Tijani, je suis en route depuis hier samedi ,j'arrive ce soir a Vilnius SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN 2010/9/6 Tijani BEN JEMAA > Français ci-dessous > > ---------------------------- > > > > Dear all, > > > > You are kindly invited to participate (physically or remotely) in the > workshop organized by AFRALO in the IGF Vilnius venue. > > > > *Workshop #:* 61 > > *Theme:* New gTLDs and IDNs for > Development > > *Date:* Tuesday 14 September 2010 > > *Time slot:* 09:00 - 11:00 > > *Venue:* Room 3 > > > > ---------------------------- > > > > Chers tous, > > > > Vous êtes cordialement invites à participer activement (physiquement ou à > distance) au workshop organisé par AFRALO dans les lieux de l’IGF Vilnius. > > > > *N° du Workshop :* 61 > > *Thème:* Nouveaux gTLD et IDN pour le > développement > > *Date:* Mardi 14 Septembre 2010 > > *Créneau horaire:* 09:00 - 11:00 > > *Lieu: * Salle 3 > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Tijani BEN JEMAA* > > Executive Director > > *M*editerranean *F*ederation of* I*nternet *A*ssociations > > *Phone : *+ 216 70 825 231 > > *Mobile : *+ 216 98 330 114 > > *Fax :* + 216 70 825 231 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sun Sep 12 04:27:05 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 11:27:05 +0300 Subject: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFF7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFF7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7E0728FE-F6B3-4178-8014-63FE0FFBAEAB@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Lee On Sep 11, 2010, at 11:31 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > ITU wants to be in NY - and UN HQ staff/diplomats agreed - because ITU wants visibility and UN diplomat types want to learn more about ICTs and development. > > Because heads of state/UN ambassadors (finally) realize icts/bband/Internet are important for reaching Millennium Development Goals Just wondering if you're basing this conclusion on anything in particular? I'm skeptical that the ITU's move is driven by a thirst for ICT knowledge among the NY-based diplomatic community and heads of state, but I'm open to persuasion… BTW, speaking of things moving to NY and such, I just stumbled on something that might be of interest, http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/08/chinas_john_bolton Best, Bill____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sun Sep 12 05:03:52 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 12:03:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] Invitation => IG4D In-Reply-To: <4C26AF32BBA04D299578F1D818674760@MTBJ> References: <4C26AF32BBA04D299578F1D818674760@MTBJ> Message-ID: Hello Tijani, On Sep 12, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > > Workshop #: 61 > Theme: New gTLDs and IDNs for Development > Date: Tuesday 14 September 2010 > Time slot: 09:00 - 11:00 > Venue: Room 3 > This looks very interesting, I wish it didn't overlap with the Setting the Scene session I have to attend (we'll be talking about some of the background papers included in the Sharm book, which are mostly by IGC members). I also wish it had popped up on the radars of the planning group for the IG4D main session; don't know how we missed it, very sorry. But while you're not listed as a "feeder workshop" for that session, it would be great if you could anyway provide an input on its main conclusions etc. BTW, the relationships between new gTLDs, IDNs and development will also be an element of a more broadly framed workshop, the fourth I've organized on the notion of a development agenda, description below. It'd be good if we could pursue some synergies between the two, as well as with other IG4D-related events, e.g. the main session, George Sadowsky's workshop WS 174 (which precedes mine in the same room), etc. Development is much more prominent on this year's agenda than in previous IGFs, but it would take some initiative to build on that going forward. Best, Bill ——————— Workshop 165, Day 2, Wednesday, 15 September, 16:30-18:30, Room 3 A Development Agenda Approach to Internet Names and Numbers A development agenda can be defined as a holistic program of analysis and action intended to mainstream development considerations into the procedures and policy outputs of global governance mechanisms. While there have been concerted efforts to pursue such agendas in the multilateral institutions dealing with issues like international trade and intellectual property, there has been no corresponding initiative with respect to global Internet governance. Hence, a series of interrelated workshops has been organized at the Rio, Hyderabad and Sharm el Sheikh IGF meetings to help foster dialogue on the possible establishment of such an initiative. Over the course of these events, participants have considered the potential value-added of a development agenda; fleshed out its broad institutional and substantive contours; identified some particularly important linkages between internet governance and development that merit further consideration; and in light of the WSIS principles, agreed that the IGF is the most appropriate venue in which to devise an approach to mainstreaming development within Internet governance institutions, as applicable. Building on these foundations, the next step in the process should be to test the general model in a specific issue-area and institutional context in order to identify possible refinements. Accordingly, the proposed Vilnius workshop would apply the development agenda approach to the field of Internet names and numbers, with particular attention being devoted to the ICANN nexus. In addition to advancing IG4D efforts within the IGF, the workshop also could provide food for thought to the growing dialogue within ICANN on how to better address development concerns. The three main elements of a development agenda to be considered would include: a) capacity building partnerships to enable the effective participation of governmental and nongovernmental actors in technical dialogues and decision making processes; b) institutional measures---e.g. with respect to information overload, working methods and culture, and possibly development-oriented focal points---that could facilitate increased engagement; and c) identification of the substantive policy issues that may raise distinctive developmental considerations and to which a developmental orientation could usefully be brought to bear. Speakers William J. Drake [moderator] Senior Associate, Centre for International Governance, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland Olga Cavalli Adviser for Technology, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Government of Argentina Rafik Dammak Research Student in Interdisciplinary Information Studies, the University of Tokyo; Tunisia Zahid Jamil Senior Partner, Jamil & Jamil, Barrister-at-Law; and Chairman, Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center; Pakistan Alice Munyua Convenor, East African IGF and Kenya ICT Action Network, Communications Commission, Government of Kenya Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies; XS4All Chair, University of Delft; Partner, the Internet Governance Project; USA Mike Silber General Manager: Regulatory, Neotel; Management Committee member, South African Internet Service Providers' Association; Member of the Board of Directors, ICANN; South Africa Jean-Jacques Subrenat Member of the Board of Directors, ICANN; France Institutional Co-Sponsors Centre for International Governance, Graduate Institute for International Studies [lead; academic] Association for Progressive Communications [civil society] Government of Argentina (TBC) [government] Institute for Internet Policy & Law, Beijing Normal University [academic] Council of Europe [international organization] Faculty of Social Sciences, the University of Buenos Aires [academic] Federal Office of Communication, Government of Switzerland [government] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 12 06:32:22 2010 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 11:32:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Invitation => IG4D In-Reply-To: References: <4C26AF32BBA04D299578F1D818674760@MTBJ> Message-ID: Bill, It will be my pleasure to see you on Tuesday at 9:00 in our workshop. You have at least one hour before the “setting the scene” session (10:00-11:30). So please come and drag others that weren’t on the list and didn’t receive the invitation. Since our workshop is programmed at the very beginning, I do wish that you come and we can coordinate interactions for the remaining IGF time and beyond. See you on Tuesday at 9:00 in Room 3. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 : William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Envoyé : dimanche 12 septembre 2010 10:04 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tijani BEN JEMAA Objet : Re: [governance] Invitation => IG4D Hello Tijani, On Sep 12, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: Workshop #: 61 Theme: New gTLDs and IDNs for Development Date: Tuesday 14 September 2010 Time slot: 09:00 - 11:00 Venue: Room 3 This looks very interesting, I wish it didn't overlap with the Setting the Scene session I have to attend (we'll be talking about some of the background papers included in the Sharm book, which are mostly by IGC members). I also wish it had popped up on the radars of the planning group for the IG4D main session; don't know how we missed it, very sorry. But while you're not listed as a "feeder workshop" for that session, it would be great if you could anyway provide an input on its main conclusions etc. BTW, the relationships between new gTLDs, IDNs and development will also be an element of a more broadly framed workshop, the fourth I've organized on the notion of a development agenda, description below. It'd be good if we could pursue some synergies between the two, as well as with other IG4D-related events, e.g. the main session, George Sadowsky's workshop WS 174 (which precedes mine in the same room), etc. Development is much more prominent on this year's agenda than in previous IGFs, but it would take some initiative to build on that going forward. Best, Bill ——————— Workshop 165, Day 2, Wednesday, 15 September, 16:30-18:30, Room 3 A Development Agenda Approach to Internet Names and Numbers A development agenda can be defined as a holistic program of analysis and action intended to mainstream development considerations into the procedures and policy outputs of global governance mechanisms. While there have been concerted efforts to pursue such agendas in the multilateral institutions dealing with issues like international trade and intellectual property, there has been no corresponding initiative with respect to global Internet governance. Hence, a series of interrelated workshops has been organized at the Rio, Hyderabad and Sharm el Sheikh IGF meetings to help foster dialogue on the possible establishment of such an initiative. Over the course of these events, participants have considered the potential value-added of a development agenda; fleshed out its broad institutional and substantive contours; identified some particularly important linkages between internet governance and development that merit further consideration; and in light of the WSIS principles, agreed that the IGF is the most appropriate venue in which to devise an approach to mainstreaming development within Internet governance institutions, as applicable. Building on these foundations, the next step in the process should be to test the general model in a specific issue-area and institutional context in order to identify possible refinements. Accordingly, the proposed Vilnius workshop would apply the development agenda approach to the field of Internet names and numbers, with particular attention being devoted to the ICANN nexus. In addition to advancing IG4D efforts within the IGF, the workshop also could provide food for thought to the growing dialogue within ICANN on how to better address development concerns. The three main elements of a development agenda to be considered would include: a) capacity building partnerships to enable the effective participation of governmental and nongovernmental actors in technical dialogues and decision making processes; b) institutional measures---e.g. with respect to information overload, working methods and culture, and possibly development-oriented focal points---that could facilitate increased engagement; and c) identification of the substantive policy issues that may raise distinctive developmental considerations and to which a developmental orientation could usefully be brought to bear. Speakers William J. Drake [moderator] Senior Associate, Centre for International Governance, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland Olga Cavalli Adviser for Technology, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Government of Argentina Rafik Dammak Research Student in Interdisciplinary Information Studies, the University of Tokyo; Tunisia Zahid Jamil Senior Partner, Jamil & Jamil, Barrister-at-Law; and Chairman, Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center; Pakistan Alice Munyua Convenor, East African IGF and Kenya ICT Action Network, Communications Commission, Government of Kenya Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies; XS4All Chair, University of Delft; Partner, the Internet Governance Project; USA Mike Silber General Manager: Regulatory, Neotel; Management Committee member, South African Internet Service Providers' Association; Member of the Board of Directors, ICANN; South Africa Jean-Jacques Subrenat Member of the Board of Directors, ICANN; France Institutional Co-Sponsors Centre for International Governance, Graduate Institute for International Studies [lead; academic] Association for Progressive Communications [civil society] Government of Argentina (TBC) [government] Institute for Internet Policy & Law, Beijing Normal University [academic] Council of Europe [international organization] Faculty of Social Sciences, the University of Buenos Aires [academic] Federal Office of Communication, Government of Switzerland [government] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Sun Sep 12 08:22:39 2010 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 08:22:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] City TLD Governance and Best Practices Workshop - IGF Vilnius Invitation Message-ID: <4C8CC60F.10008@communisphere.com> Fellow list participants, Below is the email I sent to my fellow participants on the City TLD Governance and Best Practices workshop a few days ago . This is an FYI and invitation to the full list to likewise comment in preparation for the workshop, and to attend the workshop on Friday at 2:30 if you're in Vilnius. Send your thoughts / questions to the undersigned at any time. Also, note that we'll have an exceptional workshop Remote Moderator in Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, so you can send those thoughts / questions now or later. Finally, I'll be departing on Finnair flight 6 from Kennedy today (Sunday). Anyone else? Tom Lowenhaupt P.S. I'll blog from Vilnius at http://bit.ly/OurBlog. ------------------------------------- Fellow City TLD Workshoppers; In one week we'll be sitting down to discuss City TLD Governance and Best Practices. Here I want provide some logistic info and encourage additional collaboration to make our workshop as productive as possible. * *Logistics:* I'm arriving in Vilnius at 11 AM on the 13th, staying at the Bernardinu B&B House in Old Town. I've one appointment that I'd rather not break, and that's Monday evening, from 7-8:30. Other than that, I'm in Vilnius to discuss, learn, and present more about city TLDs and their governance. So I'm delighted to meet and talk on the topic any time. You can get a feel for my schedule from this Google calenda r. Note that I've scheduled a 6 PM meeting after the workshop at Vilnius University to unwind and interact with students. But much needs to be done on this, so consider it very tentative. * *Workshop Participants I:* There's good and bad news about the participants. Hawa Diakite ... [had to cancel to trip] ... and thus she will not be sitting around the table with us in Vilnius. I'd looked forward to her presentation, which I'm sure would have represented a far different perspective than the participants from Western countries that will now dominate the workshop. I've encouraged Hawa to try and arrange for remote participation, but I'm not sure if that will be possible. * *Workshop Participants II:* It seems 2 of our members will soon be wearing new (bigger) hats. Bertrand de La Chapelle was nominated to serve on the ICANN's board of directors, and Sébastien Bachollet to ALAC. These new positions were announced on September 7 by Wolfgang Kleinwächter, a third member of our workshop, and chair of the Nominating Committee. Congratulations and thanks. * *The Workshop Process:* I'll make a welcoming and scope statement, introduce the panelists by name and title/position, referring attendees to the IGF site for detailed bios - I'll have a slide for detail. (I can still get the bios updated, so send me changes/additions if you would like.) I'll give my 6 minute presentation (see below) then introduce the panelists in Alpha order (perhaps a good way to arrange seating also.) After the 6 minute presentations we'll take questions from the remote moderator and finally from attendees. * *My Presentation:* I'll show several slides - a few presenting a reminder of the historic role of cities, showing the age of cities, Greek city-states, and Hanseatic League... I'll review the reasons the workshop is needed, and present a overview of what's been happening in New York City. Then on to the other participants. * *Other Participant Presentations:* Werner Staub will be speaking on Name Space Mandates, a plan for the assignment of coherent name-sets to responsible trustees, and Sébastien spoke of a presentation on city TLD governance. Other than that, I've not heard what participants plan on presenting. Let's share so as not to step on one another's toes. * *Getting Attendees:* I was told that I need to market the session. How is this typically done? As far as outcomes, I see two areas badly in need of development: * *Research:* A fundamental look at the role of TLDs in modifying the social, political, and economic future of cities is needed. Is it "IGF-proper" to ask for a consensus from the workshop participants that such a endeavor is appropriate? And assuming there is a consensus, I'd ask as my Moderator Question - are there suggestions as to the who and how on that - both of the panelists and attendees. * *City Transparency and Engagement:* As far as I know, none of the cities preparing to apply for TLDs will be formally represented on the panel. (I'm unclear as to the Berlin situation, which I'm sure Dirk will update us. And Werner Staub's firm is involved with several cities, but I suspect he will not be presenting on their behalf.) How can we create an awareness and resource that cities might draw upon in evaluating and developing their TLD? These are global resources and must follow various technical protocols, but providing mechanisms that encourage inter-city communication and sharing between cities has not been looked into with sufficient detail. Your thoughts on any and all of the above are sought and welcomed. Tom ------------------------------------------------------ Thomas Lowenhaupt, Founder & Chair Connecting.nyc Inc. tom at connectingnyc.org Jackson Hts., NYC 11372 718 639 4222 Web Wiki Blog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Sep 12 09:05:33 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 09:05:33 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <7E0728FE-F6B3-4178-8014-63FE0FFBAEAB@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFF7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<7E0728FE-F6B3-4178-8014-63FE0FFBAEAB@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFFB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Did I say thirst for knowledge? Thirst for power is more like it. ICTs & MDGs will be talked up at the General Assembly meeting in a week. Let's call it a hunch that there is a relationship between that, and the -otherwise odd- proposed move of WSIS action line forum 2011 to NYC. You know that for OECD heads of state, their scorecard for economic competitiveness - the league table - is the OECD broadband rankings. What's surprising about rest of world wanting in the game? It's 2010. And yeah I saw that re China's top gun at UN - whom I am 'shocked, shocked!' to learn in his drunken heart of hearts, does not care for Yankee running dog imperialists. Lee ________________________________________ From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 4:27 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight Subject: Re: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 Hi Lee On Sep 11, 2010, at 11:31 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > ITU wants to be in NY - and UN HQ staff/diplomats agreed - because ITU wants visibility and UN diplomat types want to learn more about ICTs and development. > > Because heads of state/UN ambassadors (finally) realize icts/bband/Internet are important for reaching Millennium Development Goals Just wondering if you're basing this conclusion on anything in particular? I'm skeptical that the ITU's move is driven by a thirst for ICT knowledge among the NY-based diplomatic community and heads of state, but I'm open to persuasion… BTW, speaking of things moving to NY and such, I just stumbled on something that might be of interest, http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/08/chinas_john_bolton 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Sun Sep 12 11:26:18 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 16:26:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] opening ceremony Message-ID: <4C8CF11A.4000200@wzb.eu> Hi all, Markus sent the following to the MAG list. It concerns us, particularly our speakers, as well: Dear colleagues, As you may have noted on our Web site, the President of Lithuania will take part in the opening ceremony and address the meeting. As it is normal for occasions like this, participants are therefore requested to be seated in the Main Hall by 1445. We will meet the protocol from the President's Office tomorrow to settle the finer details and will let you know should there be any additional requirements. A reminder to those of you who will either speak at or prepare a speech for the opening ceremony: speeches should not exceed 5 minutes. We would be grateful to get the text of the speech in advance (for the interpreters and also for posting on our Web site after the ceremony). Best regards Markus ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Sun Sep 12 12:19:27 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 12:19:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Invitation => IG4D In-Reply-To: References: <4C26AF32BBA04D299578F1D818674760@MTBJ> Message-ID: Hi Bill, Very interesting topic! Do you think you guys might also address or come up with some research agenda items on that? You may have noticed my "mission in action" status in policy advocacy or activism over the last couple years (and as you probably know, there's something dogging me I really needed and still need to get out of the way) but my past/recent experience in IG line of action has made me want to take on a research agenda on "IG and Economic Diversity" (or IG4D if you will)... So you all may take this either as a warning ;-) or... as a call for future collaboration. Seriously, I think a research agenda is warranted (in policy, political economy, or social sciences in general) and I'd be interested to hear about any developments on that front and to take part in any relevant effort when the time comes. From a practice perspective, I was involved (as Diplo fellow to WGIG Secretariat) in the effort led by Karen Banks among WGIG members to draft the final report chapter on development, but it was a beginning, a good one, and to my recollection the discourse at that point was rather generally ICT than specifically IG. Then it was the "ICANN nexus" as you point out that has been the most eye-opening for me. During relevant policy development processes on the GNSO council I repeatedly raised concerns about, among other things, the cost structure of new gTLD applications with in mind potential registry-wannabe's from developing regions. We discussed with fellow council members about options to address the issue, and I remember Marilyn Cade was trying to champion the idea of an ICANN foundation or rather funds-in-trust to help with that, if my memory is correct. I am not sure what has happened to that concern and those ideas since I left the council. We also had interesting process and relevant discussions with Lee and our colleagues in the Caribbean during their 2006 regional IGF in Grenada. Anyway, the reason why I'm now highlighting "economic diversity" as opposed to "development" (although I might retain the latter for international cooperation and UN types consumption) is that "development" brings up reflexes of assistance on both sides - and I contend even more on the "donor" side than we may want to think. I personally would rather take a more entrepreneurship-oriented approach in order to foster participation of developing countries in the information economy at all levels possible; I'd like to see a global IG regime that gives "equal opportunity" to players from all across the globe, not only those who can afford lawyers' fee in some country(ies) where they are the highest in the world (as if linguistic divide was not enough burden to many of them). And as a scholar, I'd like to be able to bring sound and robust arguments, based on research findings, to bear on that issue. In the mean time it will be useful to see, from your workshop, how IG issues can be framed in relation to the other development agendas in international affairs and global governance. I look forwards to hearing about your proceedings and conclusions. I wish every success to your workshop, Tijani's, the rest of the workshops, to all IGC participants and to the whole Forum. Best, Mawaki On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 5:03 AM, William Drake < william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: > Hello Tijani, > > On Sep 12, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > > > > *Workshop #:* 61 > > *Theme:* New gTLDs and IDNs for > Development > > *Date:* Tuesday 14 > September 2010 > > *Time slot:* 09:00 - 11:00 > > *Venue:* Room 3 > > > This looks very interesting, I wish it didn't overlap with the Setting the > Scene session I have to attend (we'll be talking about some of the > background papers included in the Sharm book, which are mostly by IGC > members). I also wish it had popped up on the radars of the planning group > for the IG4D main session; don't know how we missed it, very sorry. But > while you're not listed as a "feeder workshop" for that session, it would be > great if you could anyway provide an input on its main conclusions etc. > > BTW, the relationships between new gTLDs, IDNs and development will also be > an element of a more broadly framed workshop, the fourth I've organized on > the notion of a development agenda, description below. It'd be good if we > could pursue some synergies between the two, as well as with other > IG4D-related events, e.g. the main session, George Sadowsky's workshop WS > 174 (which precedes mine in the same room), etc. Development is much more > prominent on this year's agenda than in previous IGFs, but it would take > some initiative to build on that going forward. > > Best, > > Bill > ——————— > > Workshop 165, Day 2, Wednesday, 15 September, 16:30-18:30, Room 3 > > A Development Agenda Approach to Internet Names and Numbers > > A development agenda can be defined as a holistic program of analysis and > action intended to mainstream development considerations into the procedures > and policy outputs of global governance mechanisms. While there have been > concerted efforts to pursue such agendas in the multilateral institutions > dealing with issues like international trade and intellectual property, > there has been no corresponding initiative with respect to global Internet > governance. Hence, a series of interrelated workshops has been organized at > the Rio, Hyderabad and Sharm el Sheikh IGF meetings to help foster dialogue > on the possible establishment of such an initiative. Over the course of > these events, participants have considered the potential value-added of a > development agenda; fleshed out its broad institutional and substantive > contours; identified some particularly important linkages between internet > governance and development that merit further consideration; and in light of > the WSIS principles, agreed that the IGF is the most appropriate venue in > which to devise an approach to mainstreaming development within Internet > governance institutions, as applicable. Building on these foundations, the > next step in the process should be to test the general model in a specific > issue-area and institutional context in order to identify possible > refinements. > > Accordingly, the proposed Vilnius workshop would apply the development > agenda approach to the field of Internet names and numbers, with particular > attention being devoted to the ICANN nexus. In addition to advancing IG4D > efforts within the IGF, the workshop also could provide food for thought to > the growing dialogue within ICANN on how to better address development > concerns. The three main elements of a development agenda to be considered > would include: a) capacity building partnerships to enable the > effective participation of governmental and nongovernmental actors in > technical dialogues and decision making processes; b) institutional > measures---e.g. with respect to information overload, working methods and > culture, and possibly development-oriented focal points---that could > facilitate increased engagement; and c) identification of the > substantive policy issues that may raise distinctive developmental > considerations and to which a developmental orientation could usefully be > brought to bear. > > Speakers > > William J. Drake [moderator] > Senior Associate, Centre for International Governance, Graduate Institute > of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland > > Olga Cavalli > Adviser for Technology, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Government of > Argentina > > Rafik Dammak > Research Student in Interdisciplinary Information Studies, the University > of Tokyo; Tunisia > > Zahid Jamil > Senior Partner, Jamil & Jamil, Barrister-at-Law; and Chairman, Domain Name > Dispute Resolution Center; Pakistan > > Alice Munyua > Convenor, East African IGF and Kenya ICT Action Network, > Communications Commission, Government of Kenya > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies; XS4All Chair, > University of Delft; Partner, the Internet Governance Project; USA > > Mike Silber > General Manager: Regulatory, Neotel; Management Committee member, South > African Internet Service Providers' Association; Member of the Board of > Directors, ICANN; South Africa > > Jean-Jacques Subrenat > Member of the Board of Directors, ICANN; France > > > Institutional Co-Sponsors > > Centre for International Governance, Graduate Institute for International > Studies [lead; academic] > > Association for Progressive Communications [civil society] > > Government of Argentina (TBC) [government] > > Institute for Internet Policy & Law, Beijing Normal University [academic] > > Council of Europe [international organization] > > Faculty of Social Sciences, the University of Buenos Aires [academic] > > Federal Office of Communication, Government of Switzerland [government] > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Sun Sep 12 13:32:36 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 13:32:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] What is RPKI and why should you care about it? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F769@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F751@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C8C1E88.6060204@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F769@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: An observation on the overall framing of Milton Mueller's approach follows. I don't claim the following reflects his intent, but it is one of the main meanings some people will take away from the way it is specifically worded.: LAW will always be "behind" technology in all societies that profess freedom of innovation in the technological sector. Consequently, if someone has a right or freedom to go into business, as with all rights the thing is not truly a right unless it may be freely exercised, with "punishment" for abuse occurring (if any) later on after the right's been exercised... As a practical matter, law can not possibly be "ahead of the curve" and therefore anticipate very specific technological developments -- at least not when freedom of innovation exists. Law can only have principles or general laws that then have to be applied to new technological contexts. That's the almost everyday business of law and lawyers. (My "issue" here is the context or subtext I felt was underlying the opening paragraph, which is consistent with much I hear, that law is somehow "behind". Yes, we can do better and Milton Mueller's efforts can be part of that but there's no reason to expect or even to necessarily desire that law completely catches up or somehow gets ahead of technology, so it should not be faulted for doing so. Such a notion of "fault" falsely reinforces in some readers' minds that law/governance is always defective or something like that, and therefore promotes laissez faire approaches to internet regulation WITHOUT the debate and discussion that is the only way to legitimize such approaches.) ---Paul Lehto, J.D. On 9/12/10, Milton L Mueller wrote: > These are good observations, Karl. > It is good that you see the relevance of these issues. The IGF itself has > had a hard time doing that. Note that our workshop is not listed as a feeder > into the critical internet resources main session. This is not because > routing-addressing are not vital to CIR, but because no one in the MAG was > far sighted enough to view these issues as critical. As usual, they will > wait until something blows up in their face and it's too late to do anything > about it before they officially recognize routing as a major issue. > > The term "system" does not necessarily imply the singularity you are > asserting. A system is nothing more than a set of interrelated components; > one can speak of the "economic system," the "price system" and so on without > implying any centralization of authority. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] >> Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 8:28 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] What is RPKI and why should you care about it? >> >> On 09/11/2010 06:14 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> > That's the rationale behind our Workshop on "Routing and Resource >> > Certification." It's about the resource public key infrastructure >> (RPKI) >> > being proposed and implemented to secure the Internet's routing and >> > addressing system. >> >> You are right in saying that those are significant matters - matters >> that could give, in the extreme case, the power to turn-off certain >> parts of the net (or rather, turn off information needed for packets >> flowing *to* certain parts of the net to find their way.) >> >> You say the Internet's routing and addressing system" - I note the use >> of the singular form. In practice there is not a single routing system >> - there are fairly standard protocols (most particularly BGP) but those >> are carrier-to-carrier rather than a unified mesh. And there is an >> overlay of unilateral, bi-lateral, and multi-lateral agreements (human >> agreements turned into router configuration settings) that overlay the >> information that is moved by things like BGP. And, of course, we are >> seeing a trend in which large content providers (like Google) have their >> own private networks that they hook directly to large edge network >> providers (such as Comcast) thus bypassing intermediate carriers. >> >> Like fake-source email there is a problem with false or improper >> announcements of routing information. (I'm dealing with that kind of >> problem myself - someone to whom I lent some address space some years >> ago is refusing to stop advertising his use of the space - that suggests >> that the issue goes deeper than "false identity" and can reach to >> whether the entity announcing routing information is empowered to do >> so.) >> >> Regarding the other use of the singular form to "addressing" - with the >> increasing use of network address translation (there is even demand for >> it in IPv6) it is becoming increasingly hard to say which is the dog and >> which is the tail - is the "public" IP address space becoming merely a >> means to connect "private" address spaces? >> >> I ask that latter question with an intent to suggest that we might see a >> future internet that is more "lumpy" than we see today. The end-to-end >> principle may fade and be replaced by an internet in which rather than >> packets flowing unvexed end-to-end we see certain applications being >> bridged across boundaries that vanilla IP packets can not leap. In >> other words the internet may evolve from being a seamless IP packet >> transport and become something more like the mobile telephone networks - >> certain basic features will work across providers but only because the >> providers build explicit (although often hidden from user view) bridges >> among themselves. >> >> I have been slowly writing a note on how our perception of the internet >> is changing. We who have been on the net for a long time tend to view >> it as a means of moving IP packets from one IP address to another. Yet >> most people who have come to the net since, say 1995, tend to view the >> net not as a means of packet exchange but, rather, as a platform for >> certain applications. >> >> That shift of perception, from packet-mesh to application-platform, >> radically changes our view of what is important to preserve on the net >> and also changes the points where pressure may be applied for purposes >> of imposing regulation/governance or creating anti-competitive regimes. >> >> --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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ 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 mueller at syr.edu Sun Sep 12 16:39:33 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 16:39:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] What is RPKI and why should you care about it? In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F751@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C8C1E88.6060204@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F769@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F7B6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Actually I agree with your basic point, and have made it many times myself. A free society does provide innovators (technological or otherwise) the ability/right to act first and tries to impose rules afterwards - the opposite approach (which seems to be the reflexive response of the EU, which is develop rules first, and then wait for industry and society to develop in a way that conforms to the rules) leads to a lack of vibrancy and innovation. My concern with RPKI is not that "law" is behind "technology," it is that policy decisions with law-like implications could be made without our even noticing it, through certain kinds of technical choices being made now. There is a difference. > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 1:33 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > Cc: Karl Auerbach > Subject: Re: [governance] What is RPKI and why should you care about it? > > An observation on the overall framing of Milton Mueller's approach > follows. I don't claim the following reflects his intent, but it is > one of the main meanings some people will take away from the way it > is specifically worded.: > > LAW will always be "behind" technology in all societies that profess > freedom of innovation in the technological sector. Consequently, if > someone has a right or freedom to go into business, as with all rights > the thing is not truly a right unless it may be freely exercised, with > "punishment" for abuse occurring (if any) later on after the right's > been exercised... > > As a practical matter, law can not possibly be "ahead of the curve" > and therefore anticipate very specific technological developments -- > at least not when freedom of innovation exists. Law can only have > principles or general laws that then have to be applied to new > technological contexts. That's the almost everyday business of law > and lawyers. > > (My "issue" here is the context or subtext I felt was underlying the > opening paragraph, which is consistent with much I hear, that law is > somehow "behind". Yes, we can do better and Milton Mueller's efforts > can be part of that but there's no reason to expect or even to > necessarily desire that law completely catches up or somehow gets > ahead of technology, so it should not be faulted for doing so. Such a > notion of "fault" falsely reinforces in some readers' minds that > law/governance is always defective or something like that, and > therefore promotes laissez faire approaches to internet regulation > WITHOUT the debate and discussion that is the only way to legitimize > such approaches.) > > ---Paul Lehto, J.D. > > On 9/12/10, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > These are good observations, Karl. > > It is good that you see the relevance of these issues. The IGF itself > has > > had a hard time doing that. Note that our workshop is not listed as a > feeder > > into the critical internet resources main session. This is not because > > routing-addressing are not vital to CIR, but because no one in the MAG > was > > far sighted enough to view these issues as critical. As usual, they > will > > wait until something blows up in their face and it's too late to do > anything > > about it before they officially recognize routing as a major issue. > > > > The term "system" does not necessarily imply the singularity you are > > asserting. A system is nothing more than a set of interrelated > components; > > one can speak of the "economic system," the "price system" and so on > without > > implying any centralization of authority. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] > >> Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 8:28 PM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Subject: Re: [governance] What is RPKI and why should you care about > it? > >> > >> On 09/11/2010 06:14 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> > >> > That's the rationale behind our Workshop on "Routing and Resource > >> > Certification." It's about the resource public key infrastructure > >> (RPKI) > >> > being proposed and implemented to secure the Internet's routing and > >> > addressing system. > >> > >> You are right in saying that those are significant matters - matters > >> that could give, in the extreme case, the power to turn-off certain > >> parts of the net (or rather, turn off information needed for packets > >> flowing *to* certain parts of the net to find their way.) > >> > >> You say the Internet's routing and addressing system" - I note the > use > >> of the singular form. In practice there is not a single routing > system > >> - there are fairly standard protocols (most particularly BGP) but > those > >> are carrier-to-carrier rather than a unified mesh. And there is an > >> overlay of unilateral, bi-lateral, and multi-lateral agreements > (human > >> agreements turned into router configuration settings) that overlay > the > >> information that is moved by things like BGP. And, of course, we are > >> seeing a trend in which large content providers (like Google) have > their > >> own private networks that they hook directly to large edge network > >> providers (such as Comcast) thus bypassing intermediate carriers. > >> > >> Like fake-source email there is a problem with false or improper > >> announcements of routing information. (I'm dealing with that kind of > >> problem myself - someone to whom I lent some address space some years > >> ago is refusing to stop advertising his use of the space - that > suggests > >> that the issue goes deeper than "false identity" and can reach to > >> whether the entity announcing routing information is empowered to do > >> so.) > >> > >> Regarding the other use of the singular form to "addressing" - with > the > >> increasing use of network address translation (there is even demand > for > >> it in IPv6) it is becoming increasingly hard to say which is the dog > and > >> which is the tail - is the "public" IP address space becoming merely > a > >> means to connect "private" address spaces? > >> > >> I ask that latter question with an intent to suggest that we might > see a > >> future internet that is more "lumpy" than we see today. The end-to- > end > >> principle may fade and be replaced by an internet in which rather > than > >> packets flowing unvexed end-to-end we see certain applications being > >> bridged across boundaries that vanilla IP packets can not leap. In > >> other words the internet may evolve from being a seamless IP packet > >> transport and become something more like the mobile telephone > networks - > >> certain basic features will work across providers but only because > the > >> providers build explicit (although often hidden from user view) > bridges > >> among themselves. > >> > >> I have been slowly writing a note on how our perception of the > internet > >> is changing. We who have been on the net for a long time tend to > view > >> it as a means of moving IP packets from one IP address to another. > Yet > >> most people who have come to the net since, say 1995, tend to view > the > >> net not as a means of packet exchange but, rather, as a platform for > >> certain applications. > >> > >> That shift of perception, from packet-mesh to application-platform, > >> radically changes our view of what is important to preserve on the > net > >> and also changes the points where pressure may be applied for > purposes > >> of imposing regulation/governance or creating anti-competitive > regimes. > >> > >> --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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Sep 12 17:52:50 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 18:52:50 -0300 Subject: [governance] Special opportunity to participate remotely in main session on SOP Message-ID: The organizers and moderators of the main session about security, openness and privacy (SOP) will pay special attention to the contributions from remote participants. The remote moderator, Kieren McCarthy, suggested that we create a questionnaire so remote participants can share their views about the topics that will be covered by the SOP session, before the session takes place. Kieren will make a compilation of the most interesting points that people make to justify their choices on this multiple-choice questionnaire. These points will be taken into account by the moderators of the session, and will feed into the conclusions of the SOP session. This is a very innovative approach that reinforces the importance of the contributions from remote participants and brings new voices to the debate. Congratulations to the organizers for this great idea! *If you are a remote participant, do not miss the chance to contribute to the SOP session.* Answer this brief questionnaire (link below). I enclose the question below for your information http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JPXLPTC IGF Security, Openess and Privacy *1. Questionnaire* *1. Does social media need special protections and support?* [image: http://www.surveymonkey.com/i/t.gif]Does social media need special protections and support? Yes [image: http://www.surveymonkey.com/i/t.gif]No [image: http://www.surveymonkey.com/i/t.gif]Unsure Please explain why you think that. *2. What are the risks of using social media? Are individuals aware of the risks?* What are the risks of using social media? Are individuals aware of the risks? *3. Are there characteristics of the Internet that we need to preserve? What are they and why?* Are there characteristics of the Internet that we need to preserve? What are they and why? *4. Are closed standards a threat to the Internet?* [image: http://www.surveymonkey.com/i/t.gif]Are closed standards a threat to the Internet? Yes [image: http://www.surveymonkey.com/i/t.gif]No [image: http://www.surveymonkey.com/i/t.gif]Unsure Please explain why you think that. *5. What are the obstacles to international collaboration on Security Openess and Privacy and what's the best way to overcome them? * What are the obstacles to international collaboration on Security Openess and Privacy and what's the best way to overcome them? *6. Do we need global security standards?* [image: http://www.surveymonkey.com/i/t.gif]Do we need global security standards? Yes [image: http://www.surveymonkey.com/i/t.gif]No [image: http://www.surveymonkey.com/i/t.gif]Unsure Please explain why you think that. *7. Do we need global privacy standards?* [image: http://www.surveymonkey.com/i/t.gif]Do we need global privacy standards? Yes [image: http://www.surveymonkey.com/i/t.gif]No [image: http://www.surveymonkey.com/i/t.gif]Unsure Please explain why you think that. *8. What was not sufficiently addressed during the SOP session? Please, answer on the Webex chatroom, during the session, and the remote moderators will collect all answers* -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sun Sep 12 23:50:33 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 06:50:33 +0300 Subject: [governance] Invitation => IG4D In-Reply-To: References: <4C26AF32BBA04D299578F1D818674760@MTBJ> Message-ID: Hi Mawaki Thanks for all this, I certainly think research is needed and am open to collaboration etc. I have a chapter in the Sharm book being released tomorrow on the development agenda thing that suggests inter alia the formation of an open ms working group (or whatever is the locally acceptable term, if WG is still banned) that would gather analyze share info and be supported by a secretariat research capability. I suppose the chances of anything remotely like that depend on whether the UNGA process provides some 2.0 push. In the more likely event that this doesn't happen, then it'd be up to interested researchers/institutions to break the ground and see if the effort garners support over time. If that doesn't gather big mo then still smaller individual efforts like a meeting/book project are always possible. All depends on whether the core view that IG4D is a worthy construct that matters and merits further consideration moves through the usual gauntlet and emerges intact; if it gets picked apart as unnecessary, not "constructive" and worth pursuing blah blah blah then the minimalist route will be all there is. Look what happened with the WSIS Principles discussion, we had one rather three hour session in Sharm, it was declared by those who matter to be unsatisfying rather than a useful if overly constrained first effort to build on, and now apparently that part of the IGF mandate doesn't merit any further collective work. IG4D could go the same way if people don't say we want more. I hope at least IGC will… Anyway, yes let's keep the line open. Best, Bill On Sep 12, 2010, at 7:19 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Very interesting topic! Do you think you guys might also address or come up with some research agenda items on that? You may have noticed my "mission in action" status in policy advocacy or activism over the last couple years (and as you probably know, there's something dogging me I really needed and still need to get out of the way) but my past/recent experience in IG line of action has made me want to take on a research agenda on "IG and Economic Diversity" (or IG4D if you will)... So you all may take this either as a warning ;-) or... as a call for future collaboration. > > Seriously, I think a research agenda is warranted (in policy, political economy, or social sciences in general) and I'd be interested to hear about any developments on that front and to take part in any relevant effort when the time comes. > > From a practice perspective, I was involved (as Diplo fellow to WGIG Secretariat) in the effort led by Karen Banks among WGIG members to draft the final report chapter on development, but it was a beginning, a good one, and to my recollection the discourse at that point was rather generally ICT than specifically IG. Then it was the "ICANN nexus" as you point out that has been the most eye-opening for me. During relevant policy development processes on the GNSO council I repeatedly raised concerns about, among other things, the cost structure of new gTLD applications with in mind potential registry-wannabe's from developing regions. We discussed with fellow council members about options to address the issue, and I remember Marilyn Cade was trying to champion the idea of an ICANN foundation or rather funds-in-trust to help with that, if my memory is correct. I am not sure what has happened to that concern and those ideas since I left the council. We also had interesting process and relevant discussions with Lee and our colleagues in the Caribbean during their 2006 regional IGF in Grenada. > > Anyway, the reason why I'm now highlighting "economic diversity" as opposed to "development" (although I might retain the latter for international cooperation and UN types consumption) is that "development" brings up reflexes of assistance on both sides - and I contend even more on the "donor" side than we may want to think. I personally would rather take a more entrepreneurship-oriented approach in order to foster participation of developing countries in the information economy at all levels possible; I'd like to see a global IG regime that gives "equal opportunity" to players from all across the globe, not only those who can afford lawyers' fee in some country(ies) where they are the highest in the world (as if linguistic divide was not enough burden to many of them). And as a scholar, I'd like to be able to bring sound and robust arguments, based on research findings, to bear on that issue. > > In the mean time it will be useful to see, from your workshop, how IG issues can be framed in relation to the other development agendas in international affairs and global governance. I look forwards to hearing about your proceedings and conclusions. I wish every success to your workshop, Tijani's, the rest of the workshops, to all IGC participants and to the whole Forum. > > Best, > > Mawaki > > On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 5:03 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hello Tijani, > > On Sep 12, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > >> >> Workshop #: 61 >> >> Theme: New gTLDs and IDNs for Development >> >> Date: Tuesday 14 September 2010 >> >> Time slot: 09:00 - 11:00 >> >> Venue: Room 3 >> >> > > This looks very interesting, I wish it didn't overlap with the Setting the Scene session I have to attend (we'll be talking about some of the background papers included in the Sharm book, which are mostly by IGC members). I also wish it had popped up on the radars of the planning group for the IG4D main session; don't know how we missed it, very sorry. But while you're not listed as a "feeder workshop" for that session, it would be great if you could anyway provide an input on its main conclusions etc. > > BTW, the relationships between new gTLDs, IDNs and development will also be an element of a more broadly framed workshop, the fourth I've organized on the notion of a development agenda, description below. It'd be good if we could pursue some synergies between the two, as well as with other IG4D-related events, e.g. the main session, George Sadowsky's workshop WS 174 (which precedes mine in the same room), etc. Development is much more prominent on this year's agenda than in previous IGFs, but it would take some initiative to build on that going forward. > > Best, > > Bill > ——————— > > Workshop 165, Day 2, Wednesday, 15 September, 16:30-18:30, Room 3 > > A Development Agenda Approach to Internet Names and Numbers > > A development agenda can be defined as a holistic program of analysis and action intended to mainstream development considerations into the procedures and policy outputs of global governance mechanisms. While there have been concerted efforts to pursue such agendas in the multilateral institutions dealing with issues like international trade and intellectual property, there has been no corresponding initiative with respect to global Internet governance. Hence, a series of interrelated workshops has been organized at the Rio, Hyderabad and Sharm el Sheikh IGF meetings to help foster dialogue on the possible establishment of such an initiative. Over the course of these events, participants have considered the potential value-added of a development agenda; fleshed out its broad institutional and substantive contours; identified some particularly important linkages between internet governance and development that merit further consideration; and in light of the WSIS principles, agreed that the IGF is the most appropriate venue in which to devise an approach to mainstreaming development within Internet governance institutions, as applicable. Building on these foundations, the next step in the process should be to test the general model in a specific issue-area and institutional context in order to identify possible refinements. > > Accordingly, the proposed Vilnius workshop would apply the development agenda approach to the field of Internet names and numbers, with particular attention being devoted to the ICANN nexus. In addition to advancing IG4D efforts within the IGF, the workshop also could provide food for thought to the growing dialogue within ICANN on how to better address development concerns. The three main elements of a development agenda to be considered would include: a) capacity building partnerships to enable the effective participation of governmental and nongovernmental actors in technical dialogues and decision making processes; b) institutional measures---e.g. with respect to information overload, working methods and culture, and possibly development-oriented focal points---that could facilitate increased engagement; and c) identification of the substantive policy issues that may raise distinctive developmental considerations and to which a developmental orientation could usefully be brought to bear. > > Speakers > > William J. Drake [moderator] > Senior Associate, Centre for International Governance, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland > > Olga Cavalli > Adviser for Technology, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Government of Argentina > > Rafik Dammak > Research Student in Interdisciplinary Information Studies, the University of Tokyo; Tunisia > > Zahid Jamil > Senior Partner, Jamil & Jamil, Barrister-at-Law; and Chairman, Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center; Pakistan > > Alice Munyua > Convenor, East African IGF and Kenya ICT Action Network, > Communications Commission, Government of Kenya > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies; XS4All Chair, University of Delft; Partner, the Internet Governance Project; USA > > Mike Silber > General Manager: Regulatory, Neotel; Management Committee member, South African Internet Service Providers' Association; Member of the Board of Directors, ICANN; South Africa > > Jean-Jacques Subrenat > Member of the Board of Directors, ICANN; France > > > Institutional Co-Sponsors > > Centre for International Governance, Graduate Institute for International Studies [lead; academic] > > Association for Progressive Communications [civil society] > > Government of Argentina (TBC) [government] > > Institute for Internet Policy & Law, Beijing Normal University [academic] > > Council of Europe [international organization] > > Faculty of Social Sciences, the University of Buenos Aires [academic] > > Federal Office of Communication, Government of Switzerland [government] > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Sep 13 00:16:04 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 00:16:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] What is RPKI and why should you care about it? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F7B6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F751@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C8C1E88.6060204@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F769@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F7B6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 9/12/10, Milton L Mueller wrote: > My concern with RPKI is not that "law" is behind "technology," it is that > policy decisions with law-like implications could be made without our even > noticing it, through certain kinds of technical choices being made now. > > There is a difference. A big difference. In these "certain kinds of technical choices" being made that qualify for the concern above, [computer] Code is [legal] Code. Lines of computer code become de facto law, in other words. The clearest example I know of is the example of trade secret vote processing programs for elections. Nowhere does the law spell out in minutest detail what we all know is common sense: each vote is counted once, only once, and given equal weight, that base 10 math (only) is allowable, no division, subtraction, multiplication or "new math" much less creative accounting is allowed, the vote count is just 1 + 1 + 1 for each vote cast in a given category. There could not be a more important piece of legal code than to spell out in any real detail what programmers (who are not experts in democracy in any sense of the word) should do. Yet one of the highest laws in any democracy is how the suffrage is processed and counted, and that is a corporate trade secret that not even "election officials" are privy to, and yet the outcomes of the computer black box processes ARE the Law - the results of the elections. It's quite stunning to realize that the one and only authoritative voice of the people is rendered by such an inscrutable process of secrecy, and that on top of that, even if the secrecy was somehow justified as absolutely necessary or desirable, that the incumbents who have been elected by the secret processes haven't seen fit to spell out standards for programmers that are air tight and fair. Of course, 100% of incumbents were treated well by those voting computers and perhaps they are not inclined to look a gift horse in the mouth, and nobody will ever know if those detailed standards are in fact observed so long as trade secrecy is observed and also so long as classic papers in computer science like "Reflections on Trusting Trust" remain true. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- 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 jcurran at arin.net Mon Sep 13 00:50:59 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 00:50:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] What is RPKI and why should you care about it? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F7B6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F751@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C8C1E88.6060204@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F769@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F7B6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <23048B05-4D78-4241-A07D-C7D07F91E936@arin.net> On Sep 12, 2010, at 10:39 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > ... > Actually I agree with your basic point, and have made it many times myself. A free society does provide innovators (technological or otherwise) the ability/right to act first and tries to impose rules afterwards - the opposite approach (which seems to be the reflexive response of the EU, which is develop rules first, and then wait for industry and society to develop in a way that conforms to the rules) leads to a lack of vibrancy and innovation. > > My concern with RPKI is not that "law" is behind "technology," it is that policy decisions with law-like implications could be made without our even noticing it, through certain kinds of technical choices being made now. Milton - Are there particular RPKI technical choices which have "law-like implications" of which you are concerned? Also, I have yet to hear of an RIR which didn't adhere to laws in the region in which it operates, so couldn't any such items that emerged be addressed by appropriate lawmaking once realized? /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Sep 13 02:00:03 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:00:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] Engage Remotely, Connect Locally ... The IGF comes In-Reply-To: <4C8C7570.8000200@gmail.com> References: <4C8C7570.8000200@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ginger, On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Remote participants can connect individually or join an IGF hub, if one will > be organized in your home city. The complete list of IGF hubs is available > here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation > > It will be possible to follow the videocast/audiocast of all IGF sessions > and to send questions to the panelists. The official platform used for > remote participation will be Webex. The links to join each session (or each > “webex room”) will be available in IGF website prior to the meeting. Can you send these links please, am having trouble locating them! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Sep 13 02:25:14 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:25:14 +0300 Subject: [governance] What is RPKI and why should you care about it? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F7B6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F751@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C8C1E88.6060204@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F769@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F7B6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > My concern with RPKI is not that "law" is behind "technology," it is that policy decisions with law-like implications could be made without our even noticing it, through certain kinds of technical choices being made now. > I am 'shocked, shocked!' to find that "running code wins"... While I applaud your attempt at capacity building around this issue, I would hope that you focus on letting folk know how they can participate (and on encouraging them to do so) in the IETF and RIR processes that you will be talking about. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Mon Sep 13 02:58:27 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:58:27 +0300 Subject: [governance] New IGF Book Message-ID: <9FF9AA5D-9C7D-4971-A9F4-EF8E4C5814A7@graduateinstitute.ch> Hello from GigaNet, I see that the new IGF book based on Sharm, which includes 8 background papers by IGC members and fellow travelers, is now online at www.intgovforum.org/cms/images/2010/book/igf.sharm.book.final.pdf 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 email at hakik.org Mon Sep 13 03:12:44 2010 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:12:44 +0600 Subject: [governance] New IGF Book In-Reply-To: <9FF9AA5D-9C7D-4971-A9F4-EF8E4C5814A7@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <9FF9AA5D-9C7D-4971-A9F4-EF8E4C5814A7@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <20100913071353.E6D9C906EC@npogroups.org> Congratulations! It is worth reading with valuable contents on IG. Best regards, Hakik At 12:58 PM 9/13/2010, William Drake wrote: >Hello from GigaNet, > >I see that the new IGF book based on Sharm, which includes 8 >background papers by IGC members and fellow travelers, is now online at > >www.intgovforum.org/cms/images/2010/book/igf.sharm.book.final.pdf > >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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 13 03:33:09 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 03:03:09 -0430 Subject: [governance] Engage Remotely, Connect Locally ... Remote Links In-Reply-To: References: <4C8C7570.8000200@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4C8DD3B5.3010003@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 avri at acm.org Mon Sep 13 03:35:42 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:35:42 +0300 Subject: [governance] What is RPKI and why should you care about it? In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F751@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C8C1E88.6060204@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F769@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F7B6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8F3BD683-D2B6-42AF-A7A6-1921E28FE71F@acm.org> Hi, Also any running code that is, or becomes against the norm, will be changed, especially when the law requires. Law is not the issue, I would thought, but policy. In policy overcoming running code is much difficult because there has to be a good reason to change running code. So it is a good idea for policy people who understand the technology to participate in the early days of requirements creation and standards building to make sure that it is accessible to policy oriented configuration. Often policy is an evolving thing and when the technology is first conceived, the exact policies that people will want cannot be known as the potential of the system is not fully understandable - i.e. all code has emerging properties and capabilities. But the sorts of thing that must be tunable and configurable so that policy can have an effect on the running code can lergely be known or postulated. I disagree with the notion that running code is law. It just sets the filed of possibilities and constraints within which policy can navigate - with greater energy being required to move policy beyond those constraints. And true once a system is old and brittle with age (bgp routing or dns e.g.) it becomes hard to make it malleable. The relationship between code and policy in neither straightforward nor one way, but people who understand both code and policy need to be involved from the beginning in making sure that the code can meet the future possible needs of policy. I also think it is fine for people to participate in their policy groups and use the expertise of the folks who live in both worlds, like yourselves to bridge the languages between the policy place like IGC and the technology places like IETF and the RIR. while I think it is good for some of the technical folks to stray into policy spaces and policy folk to stray into technology spaces, i do think each space needs to be focused with intermediaries in both and the periodic IGF type encounters. I do not think that all of the IGC should start coming to IETF meetings or that all of the IETF participants should join the IGC mailing list. a. On 13 Sep 2010, at 09:25, McTim wrote: > Milton, > > On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > >> My concern with RPKI is not that "law" is behind > "technology," it is that policy decisions with law-like implications > could be made without our even noticing it, through certain kinds of > technical choices being made now. >> > > I am 'shocked, shocked!' to find that "running code wins"... > > While I applaud your attempt at capacity building around this issue, I > would hope that you focus on letting folk know how they can > participate (and on encouraging them to do so) in the IETF and RIR > processes that you will be talking about. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Sep 13 03:48:35 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 03:18:35 -0430 Subject: [governance] Engage Remotely, Connect Locally ... Remote Links In-Reply-To: References: <4C8C7570.8000200@gmail.com> <4C8DD3B5.3010003@paque.net> Message-ID: <4C8DD753.5000801@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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Sep 13 04:42:47 2010 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:42:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: What is RPKI and why should you care about it? In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F751@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C8C1E88.6060204@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F769@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F7B6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20100913084247.GB4072@nic.fr> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:25:14AM +0300, McTim wrote a message of 35 lines which said: > I am 'shocked, shocked!' to find that "running code wins"... If "running code" trumps law and policy, it has a name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy > While I applaud your attempt at capacity building around this issue, > I would hope that you focus on letting folk know how they can > participate (and on encouraging them to do so) in the IETF and RIR > processes that you will be talking about. It seems you did not read the IGP paper which pointed (and rightly so) that the deployment of the RPKI is done without any public specification or policy for these very organisations. The IETF did not produce one RFC yet and the RIR did not produce any formal policy (only proposals like RIPE 2008-04 ). So, even if you are a True Believer in RIR's Bottom-Up, Consensus-Based, etc, policy development process, you cannot use it as an argument 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 jovank at diplomacy.edu Mon Sep 13 05:46:46 2010 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:46:46 +0300 Subject: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFF7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4C8DF306.5050006@diplomacy.edu> Hi Sala, Thank you for reminding us that the world is round! It is definitely not flat, as Freedman claims. It has some strange shape, resembling a cube perhaps, when it comes to our experience of moving around (travel, costs, visas). Your mail reminds me of getting a visa; an important - but very often forgotten - discrimination. It is based on the fact that you are born in the 'wrong' place at the 'wrong' time. I had a unique experience because until my teens I had one of the best passports in the world (Yugoslavia), which enabled me to travel almost anywhere without a visa. Then, like a switch being shut off, I suddenly ended up with passport which required a visa for almost any place in the world. My bad luck was that I had to travel a lot for my work. As an illustration, my passport filled with visas so quickly that I had to get a new passpoert every six months. In front of the consular officers, we always seem to be weighed down with the 'presumption of guilt' trying to prove that we are not a criminal, or a terrorist... you name it and you have it (though, in my rich experience, I have never once been asked to prove that I was not a cannibal; probably because I was often traveling with my vegetarian wife). My worst memories (today I do not need as many visas) are of interviews with consular officers. In an almost Kafka-like atmosphere, we sit opposite a consular officer who holds our destiny in his hands (predominantly male profession). He can decide if our parents can come and see us and our family; if we can go and study; if we can attend IGF,... (continue the list). And consular officer very often happens to be unhappy with life. Maybe He had different career ideas/expectations ... perhaps expecting to negotiate main diplomatic treaties in New York not being stuck in a dusty office of some complicated and remote country having to deal with some 'strange' people. And here comes the moment when we, as the applicant, and the officer, as a demi-god, lock eyes for a few seconds. That moment speaks more than all the visa forms ever submitted. We say: 'Give me the damn visa and make my life easier'. He/she waits for seconds .... seconds that seem like an eternity. The verdict is... We leave the consulate completely drained emotionally (very often even physically). In my work, I participate in another forum (International Forum on Diplomatic Training) where I always try to promote consular training, especially in emotional aspects of communication. It is not easy since the consular function is the 'Cinderella' of modern diplomacy. In many diplomatic services, posting to the consular department is seen as a career "punishment". This is changing, although not fast enough. Many countries are realising that a few seconds in the consulate can shape people's experience of their country on a very deep, emotional level. While it is difficult to change big issues, one can try to make small changes. At Diplo, we always make sure that we do whatever possible to ensure that our fellows (most of them from countries requiring visas) can travel. Our travel coordinator, Milica, is as well-known among our fellows as are Ginger and Vlada who teach them. She is almost on 24-hour alert when people travel (like these days to Vilnius). Very often, it is not enough to send invitation letter and let participants deal with let people sort out their visa problems (send them the letter). We have to call consulates, explain, put a "gentle pressure". It helps. There is a lot that we can do in order to ensure that people can travel to WSIS 2011 or to any other event. Best, Jovan On 9/12/10 4:23 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > I find the advocacy for the venues, interesting. I am from Fiji > Islands and found that the Shengan visas relatively easy to acquire. I > know what it's like to be "Searched" and advised me that I needed to > consent to being searched or not fly at all it was'nt a European > Airport or American Airport but an Australian Airport where I was told > that my forefathers were cannibals...because I wanted to catch my next > flight, I did not make a scene. > > Terror and the fear of terror has impact on national policies that > translate into interjurisdictional policy. Sadly sometimes, translate > and carry the weight of some prejudices and biases. Terrorism is > something that affects all of mankind but the manner and not just some > people groups. > > Either way from the Pacific, since we are in the Southern Hemisphere, > it would mean that we would travel equal distances either way and > still pay alot. > > Maybe, they should have a cost analysis study, complete with > benchmarking air travel costs, identification of stakeholder > partcipation and what cross sectional representative percentage > margins the WSIS would wish represented or deem acceptable and then > make the decision. The study would no doubt be rational, transparent > and whilst people will always have their say but the welfare of the > entire Forum would be taken into consideration as well as considering > how we can equitably share resources etc. > > Warm Regards from the cold hotel lobby in Vinius, > > Sala > > > On 9/11/10, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> Hi, >> >> As the GAID meeting the other week bounced from room to room @UN HQ, I >> believe Marilyn's warning about how the premium on space at UN HQ may interfere >> with a smooth meeting. >> >> Which does not change Mawaki's hypothesis: ITU wants to be in NY - and UN HQ >> staff/diplomats agreed - because ITU wants visibility and UN diplomat types >> want to learn more about ICTs and development. >> >> Because heads of state/UN ambassadors (finally) realize icts/bband/Internet >> are important for reaching Millennium Development Goals. >> >> A suggested cs strategy: give them what they want. >> >> Like CS's toehold into OECD thanks to CSISAC establishment, let's change NY >> next - if that's where meeting ends up. >> >> Instead of worrying about venue and room logistics headaches, my 2 cents are >> we should fight mainly for multi-stakeholder participation. >> >> Strategic issue is - how far can we push in next phase, a proper >> participatory/cs-inclusive model, not just rhetorically but in practice. >> >> Lee >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Marilyn Cade [marilynscade at hotmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 3:15 PM >> To: Mawaki Chango ; governance at lists.cpsr.org ; meryem at marzouki.info >> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 >> >> Having attended four Action line forums, and supported the consolidation >> into a week in GVA, I wld prefer to keep the correct title - WSIS Action >> Line Forum-- it is after not the WSIS Forum, regardless of the hope of some >> to make it so, and try to turn it into a egic outcome of Tunis than it is. >> Maybe we should focus more intently -- all of us -- on encouraging the other >> three major co facilatators of action lines to stand up and play an equal >> coordinating role and sponsorship role. >> As they were trying to do in the 2010 WSIS 'Action line' Forum in May. >> >> The action lines are about hightlighting "on ground" efforts, and the >> purpose of the role of facilatators seems to being lost, perhaps accidently >> or ... Perhaps due to expediency... But needs to return. The last Action >> line forum in GVA in May was a better example of collaboration and spotlight >> sharing across the four UN agencies and had some great examples of successes >> and activities "on ground/national level" relevant to the Action Lines. >> >> I do not support moving to NY Hdqtrs. Would be btr to host at UNESCO, or >> again in GVA. >> >> As to rotating about the world - actually there is benefit to organizing in >> conjunction w the May IGF consultation and CSTD meetings, and that synergy >> gets lost. But of more signficance is losing the purpose of the "action >> lines" themselves, and sacrificing the focus on networking, leveraging best >> practices and sharing and building relationships that can advance the >> achievements in action lines for political agendas. >> >> >> Locating space with multiple rooms, display area, large plen room, etc, >> takes staff time. Rotating actually adds to burden of admintration, eating >> away at resourced that shld focus on identifyong participants for each >> action line.... >> >> Having attended events both in GVA at all the UN agencies (by now) and also >> NY UN headquarters, the space, flexibility at headquarters just isn't there. >> It is simply a fact. And not a criticism of UN hdqts. Is a lovely set of >> buildings. Was just there for GAID. >> >> I am concerned about getting a week of suitable space (several rooms) at >> headquarters-- seems overly challenging. Every time I have participated in >> events there, space is at a premium and getting space over five days for >> breakouts, action line sessions simultaneously seems improbable. Perhaps >> that was not yet factored into the proposal, or perhaps we need to raise the >> concerns. It is a risk that the shift will change the Sessions - to make >> this into more of an intergovernmental high level set of speeches. I am not >> confident that will advance the purpose of the Action line Forum. >> >> Marilyn Cade >> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mawaki Chango >> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 17:47:04 >> To:; >> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 >> >> Yeah... no, ITU involvement in WSIS wasn't an accident. WSIS wouldn't have >> seen the light of day were it not for the ITU's resolution at the 1998 >> plenipotentiary conference in Minneapolis (which then led to the related UN >> General Assembly's resolution in 2001). And as far as the UN system as a >> whole, ITU is the home and the linchpin of the summit, which is not to say >> other UN orgs./bodies do not make decisions related to WSIS and its >> follow-up in terms of their respective responsibilities. It'd be a little >> bit of stretch to think that because IGF is the summit's most substantial >> outcome, it exhausts or fulfills the whole of WSIS agenda as per its >> intergovernmental origins. >> >> >> So I agree with Meryem that each one of those arrangements has their >> specific goal commanding different strategies. Obviously if ITU wants to see >> the WSIS Forum held at UN-HQ it probably not for the excitement of a visit >> at "the Big Apple" but more likely because they hope to mobilize UN >> resources to achieve something, notwithstanding the price of sacrificing a >> bit of CS participation (in quantity). >> >> >> Let's also not forget that NYC is the single capital where (due to UN) the >> largest diplomatic body from across the world is concentrated or converges >> (sorry, that's not the case for Geneva as some may want to believe). And >> although we're getting used to "multistakeholderism," the UN's GA -- where >> those diplomats convene, discuss, negotiate and vote -- is still the >> ultimate authoritative body to make decisions before anything of a global >> legitimacy (exit, the security council) is enacted in the name of the UN. So >> it may also just be that at a critical juncture when important decisions may >> have to be made by all or a large section of those diplomats about WSIS, it >> is simple pragmatism to secure their participation and a chance for them to >> fully understand the issues (now, that may not justify a *permanent* >> transfer to NYC, see last paragr. below). >> >> >> CS can still do two things: i) strategize in order to get its inclusively >> prepared quality input through, wherever a relevant meeting takes place >> --especially for a crucial one as may be the 2011's WSIS Forum; ii) >> continuously voice the need to take special/additional measures to >> facilitate visas for a global CS to the meetings. >> >> >> Propositions could also be made as a compromise between ITU's current choice >> and Wolfgang's suggestion: 1. alternate every year between the chosen UN >> base and other places around the world; 2. rotate around the world with the >> possibility any year to host it back at UN HQ or in other UN capital if the >> agenda and schedule of international affairs make the venue potentially >> favorable to the Forum's order of business; 3. rotate between UN capitals; >> 4. etcetera. >> >> >> Best, >> Mawaki >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Meryem Marzouki> > wrote: >> >> Le 7 sept. 10 à 08:25, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : >> >> >> ICANN is travelling around the world doing outreach, IGF is travelling >> around the world doing outreach, why the WSIS Forum, which needs outreach, >> should stay in traditional places? >> >> Because, and this is obvious, they are of a different nature and they have >> different objectives. >> >> - ICANN is a private organization which attendance is mainly corporate >> business organizations, and has the needed money to bring some CS on board >> (seatbelt fastened). >> >> - IGF is still an UFO (institutionally speaking) which raison d'etre is >> heavily relying on CS (and IGOs). Conversely, CS and IGOs find it the unique >> place where they may rise their profile in the IG and related fields. >> Both ICANN and IGF, in order to justify the necessity of their existence >> and unicity, *have* to reach out to (or to organize meetings in, at least) >> different countries [on a side note, who can seriously state that IGF 2009 >> has changed anything in Egypt re: IG matters?] >> >> - WSIS Forum is the (recently) institutionalized follow-up to WSIS, which >> was, if I'm not wrong, a UN intergovernmental process led by the ITU (and >> this was by no mean an accident, contrarily to what someone said on this >> list). Since the end of WSIS, well before becoming the "WSIS Forum", it has >> been struggling for its existence and necessity and for taking over the >> other two. Now, what it needs is certainly not to travel around the world, >> but to seat itself as such at the UN headquarters (which is in NYC). >> >> ICANN showing its own well know problems, and considering the fact that >> whether it travels around the world or not, this doesn't change the essence >> of the organization and its decisions, let's talk about IGF and WSIS Forum: >> >> The former is more inclusive, but is toothless, the latter is likely to >> mainstream IG issues and make decisions, but is above all an >> intergovernmental process, in pure UN sense. >> CS may be part of both, but probably not showing the same profile (and >> consequently not the same framing of issues) at each venue. It's not >> necessarily about the height of this profile, but really about its >> orientation (susbtance) and its nature (mainly CSOs or mainly individuals). >> >> In my opinion, there is the strategic choice. Not in counting CS >> participation from different countries at one venue or the other. >> >> As regards IGOs, they can survive (in this field) only at IGF. >> >> 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 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Sep 13 06:38:26 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:38:26 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: What is RPKI and why should you care about it? In-Reply-To: <20100913084247.GB4072@nic.fr> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F751@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C8C1E88.6060204@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F769@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F7B6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <20100913084247.GB4072@nic.fr> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:25:14AM +0300, >  McTim wrote >  a message of 35 lines which said: > >> I am 'shocked, shocked!'  to find that "running code wins"... > > If "running code" trumps law and policy, it has a name: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy > >> While I applaud your attempt at capacity building around this issue, >> I would hope that you focus on letting folk know how they can >> participate (and on encouraging them to do so) in the IETF and RIR >> processes that you will be talking about. > > It seems you did not read the IGP paper which pointed I must admit, I only skimmed it. My reaction in this case is based mostly on the IGP blog, which tends to be overly dramatic. "It's likely the most important governance issue you've never heard of.". IIRC, they took the same (centralization of institutional power) tack in re: DNSSEC deployment as well. (and rightly so) > that the deployment of the RPKI is done without any public > specification or policy for these very organisations. The IETF did not > produce one RFC yet besides the 20 drafts available on the above url and 4593 :http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4593 and 3779: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3779.txt you mean? and the RIR did > not produce any formal policy (only proposals like RIPE 2008-04 > ). I'm not convinced that this is a policy matter for the RIR communities as much of an internal RIR process (change to IRR/RIR Databases). Value Added Services offered by an RIR are done according to their Activity Plans, which are subject to the approval of their memberships. Here are some links for those who want to learn more: http://labs.ripe.net/Members/agowland/ripe-ncc-validator-for-resource-certification http://lacnic.net/cgi-bin/lacnic/nav?stkey=3242314-1573119926&lg=EN&page=/en/rpki/index.html > > So, even if you are a True Believer in RIR's Bottom-Up, > Consensus-Based, etc, policy development process, you cannot use it as > an argument here. What fora would you suggest for "public specification or policy" on this issue if not the IETF? FYI, I am familiar with the RPKI work because of attendance (usually remotely) of RIR meetings, which is why I mentioned the RIRs. -- 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 vanda at uol.com.br Mon Sep 13 09:33:20 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:33:20 -0300 Subject: [governance] Invitation => IG4D In-Reply-To: References: <4C26AF32BBA04D299578F1D818674760@MTBJ> Message-ID: <005901cb5348$3c9e2920$b5da7b60$@com.br> Dear Mawaki I do believe this economic line of research is quite relevant. Being from South America regions and had been also in charge in the government ( about 8 years ago ) of use of internet in the country as well as it governance, and as participant in several IGFs, also regional's, besides 10 years involved with ICANN issues, I believe an international network to a research program on "IG and Economics diversity" sounds quite perfect and I would like to be considered as one hub of this network. We can also work for get some consortium sponsorship program including agencies from different parts of the world. Let's go deeply on this and we can get some positive feedback . All the best Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 Tel: + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob: + 55 11 8181 1464 vanda at scartezini.inf.br vanda at uol.com.br vanda at polo.inf.br skype: vanda(dot)scartezini From: Mawaki Chango [mailto:kichango at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 1:19 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake Subject: Re: [governance] Invitation => IG4D Hi Bill, Very interesting topic! Do you think you guys might also address or come up with some research agenda items on that? You may have noticed my "mission in action" status in policy advocacy or activism over the last couple years (and as you probably know, there's something dogging me I really needed and still need to get out of the way) but my past/recent experience in IG line of action has made me want to take on a research agenda on "IG and Economic Diversity" (or IG4D if you will)... So you all may take this either as a warning ;-) or... as a call for future collaboration. Seriously, I think a research agenda is warranted (in policy, political economy, or social sciences in general) and I'd be interested to hear about any developments on that front and to take part in any relevant effort when the time comes. >From a practice perspective, I was involved (as Diplo fellow to WGIG Secretariat) in the effort led by Karen Banks among WGIG members to draft the final report chapter on development, but it was a beginning, a good one, and to my recollection the discourse at that point was rather generally ICT than specifically IG. Then it was the "ICANN nexus" as you point out that has been the most eye-opening for me. During relevant policy development processes on the GNSO council I repeatedly raised concerns about, among other things, the cost structure of new gTLD applications with in mind potential registry-wannabe's from developing regions. We discussed with fellow council members about options to address the issue, and I remember Marilyn Cade was trying to champion the idea of an ICANN foundation or rather funds-in-trust to help with that, if my memory is correct. I am not sure what has happened to that concern and those ideas since I left the council. We also had interesting process and relevant discussions with Lee and our colleagues in the Caribbean during their 2006 regional IGF in Grenada. Anyway, the reason why I'm now highlighting "economic diversity" as opposed to "development" (although I might retain the latter for international cooperation and UN types consumption) is that "development" brings up reflexes of assistance on both sides - and I contend even more on the "donor" side than we may want to think. I personally would rather take a more entrepreneurship-oriented approach in order to foster participation of developing countries in the information economy at all levels possible; I'd like to see a global IG regime that gives "equal opportunity" to players from all across the globe, not only those who can afford lawyers' fee in some country(ies) where they are the highest in the world (as if linguistic divide was not enough burden to many of them). And as a scholar, I'd like to be able to bring sound and robust arguments, based on research findings, to bear on that issue. In the mean time it will be useful to see, from your workshop, how IG issues can be framed in relation to the other development agendas in international affairs and global governance. I look forwards to hearing about your proceedings and conclusions. I wish every success to your workshop, Tijani's, the rest of the workshops, to all IGC participants and to the whole Forum. Best, Mawaki On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 5:03 AM, William Drake wrote: Hello Tijani, On Sep 12, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: Workshop #: 61 Theme: New gTLDs and IDNs for Development Date: Tuesday 14 September 2010 Time slot: 09:00 - 11:00 Venue: Room 3 This looks very interesting, I wish it didn't overlap with the Setting the Scene session I have to attend (we'll be talking about some of the background papers included in the Sharm book, which are mostly by IGC members). I also wish it had popped up on the radars of the planning group for the IG4D main session; don't know how we missed it, very sorry. But while you're not listed as a "feeder workshop" for that session, it would be great if you could anyway provide an input on its main conclusions etc. BTW, the relationships between new gTLDs, IDNs and development will also be an element of a more broadly framed workshop, the fourth I've organized on the notion of a development agenda, description below. It'd be good if we could pursue some synergies between the two, as well as with other IG4D-related events, e.g. the main session, George Sadowsky's workshop WS 174 (which precedes mine in the same room), etc. Development is much more prominent on this year's agenda than in previous IGFs, but it would take some initiative to build on that going forward. Best, Bill ------- Workshop 165, Day 2, Wednesday, 15 September, 16:30-18:30, Room 3 A Development Agenda Approach to Internet Names and Numbers A development agenda can be defined as a holistic program of analysis and action intended to mainstream development considerations into the procedures and policy outputs of global governance mechanisms. While there have been concerted efforts to pursue such agendas in the multilateral institutions dealing with issues like international trade and intellectual property, there has been no corresponding initiative with respect to global Internet governance. Hence, a series of interrelated workshops has been organized at the Rio, Hyderabad and Sharm el Sheikh IGF meetings to help foster dialogue on the possible establishment of such an initiative. Over the course of these events, participants have considered the potential value-added of a development agenda; fleshed out its broad institutional and substantive contours; identified some particularly important linkages between internet governance and development that merit further consideration; and in light of the WSIS principles, agreed that the IGF is the most appropriate venue in which to devise an approach to mainstreaming development within Internet governance institutions, as applicable. Building on these foundations, the next step in the process should be to test the general model in a specific issue-area and institutional context in order to identify possible refinements. Accordingly, the proposed Vilnius workshop would apply the development agenda approach to the field of Internet names and numbers, with particular attention being devoted to the ICANN nexus. In addition to advancing IG4D efforts within the IGF, the workshop also could provide food for thought to the growing dialogue within ICANN on how to better address development concerns. The three main elements of a development agenda to be considered would include: a) capacity building partnerships to enable the effective participation of governmental and nongovernmental actors in technical dialogues and decision making processes; b) institutional measures---e.g. with respect to information overload, working methods and culture, and possibly development-oriented focal points---that could facilitate increased engagement; and c) identification of the substantive policy issues that may raise distinctive developmental considerations and to which a developmental orientation could usefully be brought to bear. Speakers William J. Drake [moderator] Senior Associate, Centre for International Governance, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland Olga Cavalli Adviser for Technology, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Government of Argentina Rafik Dammak Research Student in Interdisciplinary Information Studies, the University of Tokyo; Tunisia Zahid Jamil Senior Partner, Jamil & Jamil, Barrister-at-Law; and Chairman, Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center; Pakistan Alice Munyua Convenor, East African IGF and Kenya ICT Action Network, Communications Commission, Government of Kenya Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies; XS4All Chair, University of Delft; Partner, the Internet Governance Project; USA Mike Silber General Manager: Regulatory, Neotel; Management Committee member, South African Internet Service Providers' Association; Member of the Board of Directors, ICANN; South Africa Jean-Jacques Subrenat Member of the Board of Directors, ICANN; France Institutional Co-Sponsors Centre for International Governance, Graduate Institute for International Studies [lead; academic] Association for Progressive Communications [civil society] Government of Argentina (TBC) [government] Institute for Internet Policy & Law, Beijing Normal University [academic] Council of Europe [international organization] Faculty of Social Sciences, the University of Buenos Aires [academic] Federal Office of Communication, Government of Switzerland [government] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: 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 Mon Sep 13 10:17:17 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:17:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: AW: [governance] Global Relationships Committee Charter Message-ID: <11591066.106500.1284387437929.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d03> Dear Wolfgang, Bill and all Very intersting this "thematic debate" about the ITU. Bill pointed at some of the good reasons for explaining (not excusing) the Unions's attitude towards ICANN. One of the main reasons resides in the Convention which rules this intergovernmental body, and which can only be changed by its memberstates in the framework of the Plenipotentiary Plenary. Its non-governmental members (the so-called Sector members) are not eligible for modifying the ITU Convention and can only be part of an advisory body (e.g. TDAG), together whith governmental represntatives, that can propose modifications to the Convention submitted to the members states for approval. But the other main issue ITU is facing is the financial crisis which led to the lay-off of 20% of its staff during WSIS phase 1 (BTW : where was the WSIS-CS during the protest meeting held by the ITU people during PrepCom 3 near the CICG? I was there to show my solidarity). The primary cause of this crisis is the "telecoms sector" deregulation and the consequent weakened role of the member states, which in its turn led to lowering or limiting the member fees (more than 80% of the ITU budget). I'd just draw your attention to the fact that sector members pay only one sixth of the member state basic fees. ITU is therefore in a very critical situation and I guess that this explains that, i.e. its attitude towards ICANN. Conversely, why is ICANN outside of ITU whereas other bodies such as R&D, IDATE, GSMA, etc are inside ... and are paying for that ? Whatever could be argued about the ITU (and CSDPTT is very critical about its neoliberal zeal, course and activities) it has an important role to play in the Internet domain and, in my humble opinion, this includes some governance aspects. Therefore a cooperative way is to be preferred to a conflictual one. This way would be very effective when ITU and ICANN act jointly and consistently. A renewed ICANN ("ICANN 2G") could be this future ITU partner for promoting an Internet governance that people in ICs and DCs are waiting for. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT  > Message du 02/09/10 09:48 > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "jefsey" , governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : AW: [governance] Global Relationships Committee Charter > > > Bills comments are very useful and right to the point. It starts with the UN. And it is very linked to "budget". The need, to pay for all the ITU facilities in Geneva and the big staff in the many offices is an important driving force behind ITUs ongoing effortsd to look for new business which could help them to bring additional money into their empty pockets. BTW, it would be good to re-call the report of the Cardozo Commission on CS involvment in the UN. We should do this at the IGF when our speaker touchesd the issue oif the future of the IGF, multistakeholder processes and the role of CS in global policy development. > > And JFC asks the right question: The Resolution does not point to a text of a GRC Charter. Dies anyboday has an idea where a draft of this charter is pubished? > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: jefsey [mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com] > Gesendet: Mi 01.09.2010 23:40 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: [governance] Global Relationships Committee Charter > > > I am afraid I cannot find any "Global Relationships Committee Charter " document anywhere. What has the BoD adopted? > jfc > > At 16:54 01/09/2010, William Drake wrote: > > > I agree with Rafik, it wasn't very strategic of ITU and could be useful to ICANN et al (whether this was a strategic calculation or "trap," who knows, ask Rod I guess). Among other things, it helps to set a frame for how the Plenipotentiary outcomes will be received and reported, e.g. if ITU does more resolutions etc asserting its centrality to IG, right to make policy on ICANN matters, etc., it won't play terribly well in many circles that ICANN's leadership was not even allowed into the building while all this was happening. There will be ripples... > > Also agree with Milton about procedures actually being part of the story. Similarly, I'm told that companies that pay to join, say, ITU-T, are not allowed to attend meetings of ITU-D unless they pay there too. The budgetary model is an issue with respect to possible CS participation as well. If they were integrated into the UN system some things might be easier, but that won't happen. > > B > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Mon Sep 13 10:36:47 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:36:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: What is RPKI and why should you care about it? In-Reply-To: <20100913084247.GB4072@nic.fr> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F751@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C8C1E88.6060204@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F769@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F7B6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <20100913084247.GB4072@nic.fr> Message-ID: On Sep 13, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > It seems you did not read the IGP paper which pointed (and rightly so) > that the deployment of the RPKI is done without any public > specification or policy for these very organisations. The IETF did not > produce one RFC yet and the RIR did > not produce any formal policy (only proposals like RIPE 2008-04 > ). To add some clarity here: - The SIDR group has produced numerous Internet Drafts, and these have all been available for public review and comment - RPKI is an *optional* certification service which RIRs and others are working to make available to those ISPs that wish to use it - It provides the same type of data as today's WHOIS and the various routing registries, only with a higher degree of credibility - RPKI deployment occurs when ISPs decide to certify their routes with it, or to use it to evaluate routes received by other ISPs - ISPs are free to make use of RPKI information or ignore such, as they see fit. There are hundreds of Internet Drafts at any moment in the IETF, and many of the protocols specified have the significant ability to be used to further or curtail public policy objectives. This is to be expected, since they specify protocols that are used to build tools that service providers then use to build services. The paper's thesis appears to be that "critical 
and 
wide‐ranging
 dialogue 
about
 the
 governance 
implications" should occur when new tools are deployed, and if that's the case, then now is indeed the time for those interested to seek out ISPs who intend to use this technology and engage in the desired critical dialogue. I would not expect the ISP community to proactively pursue such dialogue for RPKI any more than they sought it when deploying other new technologies such as route reflectors, routing registries, SNMPv2, BGP-4, RVSP, MPLS, or any of the other technologies used to build and maintain networks. /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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Sep 13 11:14:22 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 18:14:22 +0300 Subject: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <4C8DF306.5050006@diplomacy.edu> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACFF7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4C8DF306.5050006@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: Hi Jovan, Thanks, it helps to know that I am not alone in my experience and that there are others who go through challenges. Yes, Milica was extremely helpful. Warm Regards, Sala On 9/13/10, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > Hi Sala, > > Thank you for reminding us that the world is round! It is definitely not > flat, as Freedman claims. It has some strange shape, resembling a cube > perhaps, when it comes to our experience of moving around (travel, > costs, visas). > > Your mail reminds me of getting a visa; an important - but very often > forgotten - discrimination. It is based on the fact that you are born in > the 'wrong' place at the 'wrong' time. > > I had a unique experience because until my teens I had one of the best > passports in the world (Yugoslavia), which enabled me to travel almost > anywhere without a visa. Then, like a switch being shut off, I suddenly > ended up with passport which required a visa for almost any place in the > world. My bad luck was that I had to travel a lot for my work. As an > illustration, my passport filled with visas so quickly that I had to get > a new passpoert every six months. > > In front of the consular officers, we always seem to be weighed down > with the 'presumption of guilt' trying to prove that we are not a > criminal, or a terrorist... you name it and you have it (though, in my > rich experience, I have never once been asked to prove that I was not a > cannibal; probably because I was often traveling with my vegetarian wife). > > My worst memories (today I do not need as many visas) are of interviews > with consular officers. In an almost Kafka-like atmosphere, we sit > opposite a consular officer who holds our destiny in his hands > (predominantly male profession). He can decide if our parents can come > and see us and our family; if we can go and study; if we can attend > IGF,... (continue the list). And consular officer very often happens to > be unhappy with life. Maybe He had different career ideas/expectations > ... perhaps expecting to negotiate main diplomatic treaties in New York > not being stuck in a dusty office of some complicated and remote country > having to deal with some 'strange' people. And here comes the moment > when we, as the applicant, and the officer, as a demi-god, lock eyes for > a few seconds. That moment speaks more than all the visa forms ever > submitted. We say: 'Give me the damn visa and make my life easier'. > He/she waits for seconds .... seconds that seem like an eternity. The > verdict is... We leave the consulate completely drained emotionally > (very often even physically). > > In my work, I participate in another forum (International Forum on > Diplomatic Training) where I always try to promote consular training, > especially in emotional aspects of communication. It is not easy since > the consular function is the 'Cinderella' of modern diplomacy. In many > diplomatic services, posting to the consular department is seen as a > career "punishment". This is changing, although not fast enough. Many > countries are realising that a few seconds in the consulate can shape > people's experience of their country on a very deep, emotional level. > > While it is difficult to change big issues, one can try to make small > changes. At Diplo, we always make sure that we do whatever possible to > ensure that our fellows (most of them from countries requiring visas) > can travel. Our travel coordinator, Milica, is as well-known among our > fellows as are Ginger and Vlada who teach them. She is almost on 24-hour > alert when people travel (like these days to Vilnius). Very often, it is > not enough to send invitation letter and let participants deal with let > people sort out their visa problems (send them the letter). We have to > call consulates, explain, put a "gentle pressure". It helps. There is a > lot that we can do in order to ensure that people can travel to WSIS > 2011 or to any other event. > > Best, Jovan > > > On 9/12/10 4:23 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> I find the advocacy for the venues, interesting. I am from Fiji >> Islands and found that the Shengan visas relatively easy to acquire. I >> know what it's like to be "Searched" and advised me that I needed to >> consent to being searched or not fly at all it was'nt a European >> Airport or American Airport but an Australian Airport where I was told >> that my forefathers were cannibals...because I wanted to catch my next >> flight, I did not make a scene. >> >> Terror and the fear of terror has impact on national policies that >> translate into interjurisdictional policy. Sadly sometimes, translate >> and carry the weight of some prejudices and biases. Terrorism is >> something that affects all of mankind but the manner and not just some >> people groups. >> >> Either way from the Pacific, since we are in the Southern Hemisphere, >> it would mean that we would travel equal distances either way and >> still pay alot. >> >> Maybe, they should have a cost analysis study, complete with >> benchmarking air travel costs, identification of stakeholder >> partcipation and what cross sectional representative percentage >> margins the WSIS would wish represented or deem acceptable and then >> make the decision. The study would no doubt be rational, transparent >> and whilst people will always have their say but the welfare of the >> entire Forum would be taken into consideration as well as considering >> how we can equitably share resources etc. >> >> Warm Regards from the cold hotel lobby in Vinius, >> >> Sala >> >> >> On 9/11/10, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> As the GAID meeting the other week bounced from room to room @UN HQ, I >>> believe Marilyn's warning about how the premium on space at UN HQ may >>> interfere >>> with a smooth meeting. >>> >>> Which does not change Mawaki's hypothesis: ITU wants to be in NY - and UN >>> HQ >>> staff/diplomats agreed - because ITU wants visibility and UN diplomat >>> types >>> want to learn more about ICTs and development. >>> >>> Because heads of state/UN ambassadors (finally) realize >>> icts/bband/Internet >>> are important for reaching Millennium Development Goals. >>> >>> A suggested cs strategy: give them what they want. >>> >>> Like CS's toehold into OECD thanks to CSISAC establishment, let's change >>> NY >>> next - if that's where meeting ends up. >>> >>> Instead of worrying about venue and room logistics headaches, my 2 cents >>> are >>> we should fight mainly for multi-stakeholder participation. >>> >>> Strategic issue is - how far can we push in next phase, a proper >>> participatory/cs-inclusive model, not just rhetorically but in practice. >>> >>> Lee >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Marilyn Cade [marilynscade at hotmail.com] >>> Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 3:15 PM >>> To: Mawaki Chango ; governance at lists.cpsr.org ; meryem at marzouki.info >>> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 >>> >>> Having attended four Action line forums, and supported the consolidation >>> into a week in GVA, I wld prefer to keep the correct title - WSIS Action >>> Line Forum-- it is after not the WSIS Forum, regardless of the hope of >>> some >>> to make it so, and try to turn it into a egic outcome of Tunis than it >>> is. >>> Maybe we should focus more intently -- all of us -- on encouraging the >>> other >>> three major co facilatators of action lines to stand up and play an equal >>> coordinating role and sponsorship role. >>> As they were trying to do in the 2010 WSIS 'Action line' Forum in May. >>> >>> The action lines are about hightlighting "on ground" efforts, and the >>> purpose of the role of facilatators seems to being lost, perhaps >>> accidently >>> or ... Perhaps due to expediency... But needs to return. The last Action >>> line forum in GVA in May was a better example of collaboration and >>> spotlight >>> sharing across the four UN agencies and had some great examples of >>> successes >>> and activities "on ground/national level" relevant to the Action Lines. >>> >>> I do not support moving to NY Hdqtrs. Would be btr to host at UNESCO, or >>> again in GVA. >>> >>> As to rotating about the world - actually there is benefit to organizing >>> in >>> conjunction w the May IGF consultation and CSTD meetings, and that >>> synergy >>> gets lost. But of more signficance is losing the purpose of the "action >>> lines" themselves, and sacrificing the focus on networking, leveraging >>> best >>> practices and sharing and building relationships that can advance the >>> achievements in action lines for political agendas. >>> >>> >>> Locating space with multiple rooms, display area, large plen room, etc, >>> takes staff time. Rotating actually adds to burden of admintration, >>> eating >>> away at resourced that shld focus on identifyong participants for each >>> action line.... >>> >>> Having attended events both in GVA at all the UN agencies (by now) and >>> also >>> NY UN headquarters, the space, flexibility at headquarters just isn't >>> there. >>> It is simply a fact. And not a criticism of UN hdqts. Is a lovely set of >>> buildings. Was just there for GAID. >>> >>> I am concerned about getting a week of suitable space (several rooms) at >>> headquarters-- seems overly challenging. Every time I have participated >>> in >>> events there, space is at a premium and getting space over five days for >>> breakouts, action line sessions simultaneously seems improbable. Perhaps >>> that was not yet factored into the proposal, or perhaps we need to raise >>> the >>> concerns. It is a risk that the shift will change the Sessions - to >>> make >>> this into more of an intergovernmental high level set of speeches. I am >>> not >>> confident that will advance the purpose of the Action line Forum. >>> >>> Marilyn Cade >>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Mawaki Chango >>> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 17:47:04 >>> To:; >>> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2011 >>> >>> Yeah... no, ITU involvement in WSIS wasn't an accident. WSIS wouldn't >>> have >>> seen the light of day were it not for the ITU's resolution at the 1998 >>> plenipotentiary conference in Minneapolis (which then led to the related >>> UN >>> General Assembly's resolution in 2001). And as far as the UN system as a >>> whole, ITU is the home and the linchpin of the summit, which is not to >>> say >>> other UN orgs./bodies do not make decisions related to WSIS and its >>> follow-up in terms of their respective responsibilities. It'd be a little >>> bit of stretch to think that because IGF is the summit's most substantial >>> outcome, it exhausts or fulfills the whole of WSIS agenda as per its >>> intergovernmental origins. >>> >>> >>> So I agree with Meryem that each one of those arrangements has their >>> specific goal commanding different strategies. Obviously if ITU wants to >>> see >>> the WSIS Forum held at UN-HQ it probably not for the excitement of a >>> visit >>> at "the Big Apple" but more likely because they hope to mobilize UN >>> resources to achieve something, notwithstanding the price of sacrificing >>> a >>> bit of CS participation (in quantity). >>> >>> >>> Let's also not forget that NYC is the single capital where (due to UN) >>> the >>> largest diplomatic body from across the world is concentrated or >>> converges >>> (sorry, that's not the case for Geneva as some may want to believe). And >>> although we're getting used to "multistakeholderism," the UN's GA -- >>> where >>> those diplomats convene, discuss, negotiate and vote -- is still the >>> ultimate authoritative body to make decisions before anything of a global >>> legitimacy (exit, the security council) is enacted in the name of the UN. >>> So >>> it may also just be that at a critical juncture when important decisions >>> may >>> have to be made by all or a large section of those diplomats about WSIS, >>> it >>> is simple pragmatism to secure their participation and a chance for them >>> to >>> fully understand the issues (now, that may not justify a *permanent* >>> transfer to NYC, see last paragr. below). >>> >>> >>> CS can still do two things: i) strategize in order to get its inclusively >>> prepared quality input through, wherever a relevant meeting takes place >>> --especially for a crucial one as may be the 2011's WSIS Forum; ii) >>> continuously voice the need to take special/additional measures to >>> facilitate visas for a global CS to the meetings. >>> >>> >>> Propositions could also be made as a compromise between ITU's current >>> choice >>> and Wolfgang's suggestion: 1. alternate every year between the chosen UN >>> base and other places around the world; 2. rotate around the world with >>> the >>> possibility any year to host it back at UN HQ or in other UN capital if >>> the >>> agenda and schedule of international affairs make the venue potentially >>> favorable to the Forum's order of business; 3. rotate between UN >>> capitals; >>> 4. etcetera. >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> Mawaki >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Meryem Marzouki>> > wrote: >>> >>> Le 7 sept. 10 à 08:25, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit : >>> >>> >>> ICANN is travelling around the world doing outreach, IGF is travelling >>> around the world doing outreach, why the WSIS Forum, which needs >>> outreach, >>> should stay in traditional places? >>> >>> Because, and this is obvious, they are of a different nature and they >>> have >>> different objectives. >>> >>> - ICANN is a private organization which attendance is mainly corporate >>> business organizations, and has the needed money to bring some CS on >>> board >>> (seatbelt fastened). >>> >>> - IGF is still an UFO (institutionally speaking) which raison d'etre is >>> heavily relying on CS (and IGOs). Conversely, CS and IGOs find it the >>> unique >>> place where they may rise their profile in the IG and related fields. >>> Both ICANN and IGF, in order to justify the necessity of their >>> existence >>> and unicity, *have* to reach out to (or to organize meetings in, at >>> least) >>> different countries [on a side note, who can seriously state that IGF >>> 2009 >>> has changed anything in Egypt re: IG matters?] >>> >>> - WSIS Forum is the (recently) institutionalized follow-up to WSIS, >>> which >>> was, if I'm not wrong, a UN intergovernmental process led by the ITU (and >>> this was by no mean an accident, contrarily to what someone said on this >>> list). Since the end of WSIS, well before becoming the "WSIS Forum", it >>> has >>> been struggling for its existence and necessity and for taking over the >>> other two. Now, what it needs is certainly not to travel around the >>> world, >>> but to seat itself as such at the UN headquarters (which is in NYC). >>> >>> ICANN showing its own well know problems, and considering the fact that >>> whether it travels around the world or not, this doesn't change the >>> essence >>> of the organization and its decisions, let's talk about IGF and WSIS >>> Forum: >>> >>> The former is more inclusive, but is toothless, the latter is likely to >>> mainstream IG issues and make decisions, but is above all an >>> intergovernmental process, in pure UN sense. >>> CS may be part of both, but probably not showing the same profile (and >>> consequently not the same framing of issues) at each venue. It's not >>> necessarily about the height of this profile, but really about its >>> orientation (susbtance) and its nature (mainly CSOs or mainly >>> individuals). >>> >>> In my opinion, there is the strategic choice. Not in counting CS >>> participation from different countries at one venue or the other. >>> >>> As regards IGOs, they can survive (in this field) only at IGF. >>> >>> 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 >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > -- Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro P.O.Box 17862 Suva Fiji Islands Cell: +679 9982851 Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj "Wisdom is far better than riches." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Sep 13 11:16:10 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 18:16:10 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Ofcom update: Super-fast broadband benefits for Older and Disabled People In-Reply-To: <94DBAEE4B42A20489E3338112D67F81D0F9BA15A4D@OFCOMMAIL-01.intra.ofcom.local> References: <94DBAEE4B42A20489E3338112D67F81D0F9BA15A4D@OFCOMMAIL-01.intra.ofcom.local> Message-ID: FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Updates Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:09:48 +0100 Subject: Ofcom update: Super-fast broadband benefits for Older and Disabled People To: Ofcom's Advisory Committee for Older and Disabled People has today published research into the benefits that next generation super-fast broadband could bring to older and disabled people. The research gives examples of a range of services already being piloted or in development. It also explores how existing services could be enriched as a result of faster broadband connections. The full research can be found here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/how-ofcom-is-run/committees/older-and-disabled-people/research/ ........................................................................... Please do not respond to this email. To remove yourself from this update list, use the online forms: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/subscribe/select_list.htm. ****************************************************************************************************************** For more information visit www.ofcom.org.uk This email (and any attachments) is confidential and intended for the use of the addressee only. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message and delete it from your system. This email has been scanned for viruses. However, you open any attachments at your own risk. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and do not represent the views or opinions of Ofcom unless expressly stated otherwise. ****************************************************************************************************************** ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ -- 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 Mon Sep 13 17:28:05 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:28:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Patent Office Admits Truth; Things Are a Disaster In-Reply-To: <2751669.1284400459333.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <2751669.1284400459333.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: >>From: Richard Stallman >>Based on the premise that the patent system is basically a good >>thing, the long delay in getting a patent would be a big flaw. >> >>However, in the software field, what we need is to be safe from patent >>threats. Faster granting of patents wouldn't cut it. This is one major reason why government isn't always "efficient". One only wishes efficiency when the underlying goal is agreed to. If we don't agree with the goal, or if the goal is itself illegal or a violation of public policy, then of course efficiency is not only not desirable, it is a positively bad thing. (Truman: "If you want efficiency, you'll get a dictatorship.") Paul Lehto, J.D. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Mon Sep 13 18:15:40 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 19:15:40 -0300 Subject: [governance] Engage Remotely, Connect Locally ... Remote Links In-Reply-To: <4C8DD3B5.3010003@paque.net> References: <4C8C7570.8000200@gmail.com> <4C8DD3B5.3010003@paque.net> Message-ID: <010801cb5391$3b632df0$b22989d0$@com.br> Thank you . I will enter during time slots I have. From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 4:33 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim Cc: Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] Engage Remotely, Connect Locally ... Remote Links The remote connection links are now up at www.intgovforum.org: Table of Live transcription links Main Session Room: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=IGF &chat=false Room 1: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=IGF1 &chat=false Room 2: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=IGF2 &chat=false Room 3: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=IGF3 &chat=false Room 4: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=IGF4 &chat=false Room 5: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=IGF5 &chat=false Room 6: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=IGF6 &chat=false Room 7: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=IGF7 &chat=false Room 8: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=IGF8 &chat=false Room 9: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=IGF9 &chat=false In order to convert Vilnius local time into your time zone, you can visit this website. On 9/13/2010 1:30 AM, McTim wrote: Hi Ginger, On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: Remote participants can connect individually or join an IGF hub, if one will be organized in your home city. The complete list of IGF hubs is available here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation It will be possible to follow the videocast/audiocast of all IGF sessions and to send questions to the panelists. The official platform used for remote participation will be Webex. The links to join each session (or each "webex room") will be available in IGF website prior to the meeting. Can you send these links please, am having trouble locating them! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Sep 13 19:10:44 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 01:10:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Invitation => IG4D In-Reply-To: References: <4C26AF32BBA04D299578F1D818674760@MTBJ> Message-ID: Dear Bill, As you mention the IG Publication for this year, I have to personally congratulate you and the contributors to this publication for doing an amazingly wonderful job!!! Hats off because this has become an important documentation to read and keep. I appreciate your contribution on IG4D as it is a very helpful starter as well as to help people get up to speed on contemporary issues with regards to the relation between IG and development! This is a very important contribution to both the IGF and the IG4D session that will not go un-noticed! Best Regards Fouad Bajwa On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:50 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Mawaki > Thanks for all this, I certainly think research is needed and am open to > collaboration etc.  I have a chapter in the Sharm book being released > tomorrow on the development agenda thing that suggests inter alia the > formation of an open ms working group (or whatever is the locally acceptable > term, if WG is still banned) that would gather analyze share info and be > supported by a secretariat research capability.  I suppose the chances of > anything remotely like that depend on whether the UNGA process provides some > 2.0 push. In the more likely event that this doesn't happen, then it'd be up > to interested researchers/institutions to break the ground and see if the > effort garners support over time.  If that doesn't gather big mo then still > smaller individual efforts like a meeting/book project are always possible. >  All depends on whether the core view that IG4D is a worthy construct that > matters and merits further consideration moves through the usual gauntlet > and emerges intact; if it gets picked apart as unnecessary, not > "constructive" and worth pursuing blah blah blah then the minimalist route > will be all there is.  Look what happened with the WSIS Principles > discussion, we had one rather three hour session in Sharm, it was declared > by those who matter to be unsatisfying rather than a useful if overly > constrained first effort to build on, and now apparently that part of the > IGF mandate doesn't merit any further collective work.  IG4D could go the > same way if people don't say we want more.  I hope at least IGC will… > Anyway, yes let's keep the line open. > Best, > Bill > On Sep 12, 2010, at 7:19 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Hi Bill, > Very interesting topic! Do you think you guys might also address or come up > with some research agenda items on that? You may have noticed my "mission in > action" status in policy advocacy or activism over the last couple years > (and as you probably know, there's something dogging me I really needed and > still need to get out of the way) but my past/recent experience in IG line > of action has made me want to take on a research agenda on "IG and Economic > Diversity" (or IG4D if you will)... So you all may take this either as a > warning ;-) or... as a call for future collaboration. > Seriously, I think a research agenda is warranted (in policy, political > economy, or social sciences in general) and I'd be interested to hear about > any developments on that front and to take part in any relevant effort when > the time comes. > From a practice perspective, I was involved (as Diplo fellow to WGIG > Secretariat) in the effort led by Karen Banks among WGIG members to draft > the final report chapter on development, but it was a beginning, a good one, > and to my recollection the discourse at that point was rather generally ICT > than specifically IG. Then it was the "ICANN nexus" as you point out that > has been the most eye-opening for me. During relevant policy development > processes on the GNSO council I repeatedly raised concerns about, among > other things, the cost structure of new gTLD applications with in > mind potential registry-wannabe's from developing regions. We discussed with > fellow council members about options to address the issue, and I remember > Marilyn Cade was trying to champion the idea of an ICANN foundation or > rather funds-in-trust to help with that, if my memory is correct. I am not > sure what has happened to that concern and those ideas since I left the > council. We also had interesting process and relevant discussions with Lee > and our colleagues in the Caribbean during their 2006 regional IGF in > Grenada. > Anyway, the reason why I'm now highlighting "economic diversity" as opposed > to "development" (although I might retain the latter for international > cooperation and UN types consumption) is that "development" brings up > reflexes of assistance on both sides - and I contend even more on the > "donor" side than we may want to think. I personally would rather take a > more entrepreneurship-oriented approach in order to foster participation of > developing countries in the information economy at all levels possible; I'd > like to see a global IG regime that gives "equal opportunity" to players > from all across the globe, not only those who can afford lawyers' fee in > some country(ies) where they are the highest in the world (as if linguistic > divide was not enough burden to many of them). And as a scholar, I'd like to > be able to bring sound and robust arguments, based on research findings, to > bear on that issue. > In the mean time it will be useful to see, from your workshop, how IG issues > can be framed in relation to the other development agendas in international > affairs and global governance. I look forwards to hearing about your > proceedings and conclusions. I wish every success to your workshop, > Tijani's, the rest of the workshops, to all IGC participants and to the > whole Forum. > Best, > Mawaki > On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 5:03 AM, William Drake > wrote: >> >> Hello Tijani, >> On Sep 12, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: >> >> >> >>                         Workshop #:    61 >> >>                         Theme:           New gTLDs and IDNs for >> Development >> >>                         Date:                           Tuesday 14 >> September 2010 >> >>                         Time slot:        09:00 - 11:00 >> >>                         Venue:                        Room 3 >> >> This looks very interesting, I wish it didn't overlap with the Setting the >> Scene session I have to attend (we'll be talking about some of the >> background papers included in the Sharm book, which are mostly by IGC >> members).  I also wish it had popped up on the radars of the planning group >> for the IG4D main session; don't know how we missed it, very sorry.  But >> while you're not listed as a "feeder workshop" for that session, it would be >> great if you could anyway provide an input on its main conclusions etc. >> BTW, the relationships between new gTLDs, IDNs and development will also >> be an element of a more broadly framed workshop, the fourth I've organized >> on the notion of a development agenda, description below.  It'd be good if >> we could pursue some synergies between the two, as well as with other >> IG4D-related events, e.g. the main session, George Sadowsky's workshop WS >> 174 (which precedes mine in the same room), etc.  Development is much more >> prominent on this year's agenda than in previous IGFs, but it would take >> some initiative to build on that going forward. >> Best, >> Bill >> ——————— >> Workshop 165, Day 2, Wednesday, 15 September, 16:30-18:30, Room 3 >> >> A Development Agenda Approach to Internet Names and Numbers >> >> A development agenda can be defined as a holistic program of analysis and >> action intended to mainstream development considerations into the procedures >> and policy outputs of global governance mechanisms. While there have been >> concerted efforts to pursue such agendas in the multilateral institutions >> dealing with issues like international trade and intellectual property, >> there has been no corresponding initiative with respect to global Internet >> governance. Hence, a series of interrelated workshops has been organized at >> the Rio, Hyderabad and Sharm el Sheikh IGF meetings to help foster dialogue >> on the possible establishment of such an initiative.  Over the course of >> these events, participants have considered the potential value-added of a >> development agenda; fleshed out its broad institutional and substantive >> contours; identified some particularly important linkages between internet >> governance and development that merit further consideration; and in light of >> the WSIS principles, agreed that the IGF is the most appropriate venue in >> which to devise an approach to mainstreaming development within Internet >> governance institutions, as applicable.  Building on these foundations, the >> next step in the process should be to test the general model in a specific >> issue-area and institutional context in order to identify possible >> refinements. >> >> Accordingly, the proposed Vilnius workshop would apply the development >> agenda approach to the field of Internet names and numbers, with particular >> attention being devoted to the ICANN nexus.   In addition to advancing IG4D >> efforts within the IGF, the workshop also could provide food for thought to >> the growing dialogue within ICANN on how to better address development >> concerns.  The three main elements of a development agenda to be considered >> would include: a) capacity building partnerships to enable the >> effective participation of governmental and nongovernmental actors in >> technical dialogues and decision making processes; b) institutional >> measures---e.g. with respect to information overload, working methods and >> culture, and possibly development-oriented focal points---that could >> facilitate increased engagement; and c) identification of the >> substantive policy issues that may raise distinctive developmental >> considerations and to which a developmental orientation could usefully be >> brought to bear. >> >> Speakers >> >> William J. Drake  [moderator] >> Senior Associate, Centre for International Governance, Graduate Institute >> of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland >> >> Olga Cavalli >> Adviser for Technology, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Government of >> Argentina >> >> Rafik Dammak >> Research Student in Interdisciplinary Information Studies, the University >> of Tokyo; Tunisia >> >> Zahid Jamil >> Senior Partner, Jamil & Jamil, Barrister-at-Law; and Chairman, Domain Name >> Dispute Resolution Center; Pakistan >> >> Alice Munyua >> Convenor, East African IGF and Kenya ICT Action Network, >> Communications Commission, Government of Kenya >> >> Milton Mueller >> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies; XS4All >> Chair, University of Delft; Partner, the Internet Governance Project; USA >> >> Mike Silber >> General Manager: Regulatory, Neotel; Management Committee member, South >> African Internet Service Providers' Association; Member of the Board of >> Directors, ICANN; South Africa >> >> Jean-Jacques Subrenat >> Member of the Board of Directors, ICANN; France >> >> >> Institutional Co-Sponsors >> >> Centre for International Governance, Graduate Institute for International >> Studies [lead; academic] >> >> Association for Progressive Communications [civil society] >> >> Government of Argentina (TBC) [government] >> >> Institute for Internet Policy & Law, Beijing Normal University [academic] >> >> Council of Europe [international organization] >> >> Faculty of Social Sciences, the University of Buenos Aires [academic] >> >> Federal Office of Communication, Government of Switzerland [government] >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 13 20:30:25 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:30:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] Invitation => IG4D In-Reply-To: <005901cb5348$3c9e2920$b5da7b60$@com.br> References: <4C26AF32BBA04D299578F1D818674760@MTBJ> <005901cb5348$3c9e2920$b5da7b60$@com.br> Message-ID: Dear Vanda: Thank you for showing interest and support for this suggestion. It would be great indeed to launch one day not so far in the future a research consortium network on "IG and Economic Diversity" with hubs in Brazil, India and Africa (to mention but a few as examples of geographical distribution), as well as with a couple of global associates such as Bill and his structure. There is also GigaNet this initiative might link to one way or the other. I do believe in the intelligence of collaboration (especially on large-scale issues such as this), and I'm envisioning something that will not be easily ignored as just another matter of concern only for the poor. That's why we will need to go beyond advocacy and to well documented research -- both empirical and theoretical. All who are willing to contribute the best of their knowledge, experience, expertise and relevant resources will be welcome, not the least of which are potential sponsors. Let's take stock after what will come out of IGF '10. Best, Mawaki On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Vanda UOL wrote: > Dear Mawaki > > > > I do believe this economic line of research is quite relevant. Being from > South America regions and had been also in charge in the government ( about > 8 years ago ) of use of internet in the country as well as it governance, > and as participant in several IGFs, also regional’s, besides 10 years > involved with ICANN issues, I believe an international network to a research > program on “IG and Economics diversity” sounds quite perfect and I would > like to be considered as one hub of this network. We can also work for get > some consortium sponsorship program including agencies from different parts > of the world. > > Let’s go deeply on this and we can get some positive feedback . > > All the best > > > > > > * Vanda Scartezini* > > *Polo Consultores Associados & IT Trend* > > * Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8* > > *Tel: + 55 11 3266.6253* > > *Mob: + 55 11 8181 1464* > > *vanda at scartezini.inf.br* > > *vanda at uol.com.br* > > *vanda at polo.inf.br * > > * skype: vanda(dot)scartezini* > > > > > > > > *From:* Mawaki Chango [mailto:kichango at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, September 12, 2010 1:19 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Invitation => IG4D > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > Very interesting topic! Do you think you guys might also address or come up > with some research agenda items on that? You may have noticed my "mission in > action" status in policy advocacy or activism over the last couple years > (and as you probably know, there's something dogging me I really needed and > still need to get out of the way) but my past/recent experience in IG line > of action has made me want to take on a research agenda on "IG and Economic > Diversity" (or IG4D if you will)... So you all may take this either as a > warning ;-) or... as a call for future collaboration. > > > > Seriously, I think a research agenda is warranted (in policy, political > economy, or social sciences in general) and I'd be interested to hear about > any developments on that front and to take part in any relevant effort when > the time comes. > > > > From a practice perspective, I was involved (as Diplo fellow to WGIG > Secretariat) in the effort led by Karen Banks among WGIG members to draft > the final report chapter on development, but it was a beginning, a good one, > and to my recollection the discourse at that point was rather generally ICT > than specifically IG. Then it was the "ICANN nexus" as you point out that > has been the most eye-opening for me. During relevant policy development > processes on the GNSO council I repeatedly raised concerns about, among > other things, the cost structure of new gTLD applications with in > mind potential registry-wannabe's from developing regions. We discussed with > fellow council members about options to address the issue, and I remember > Marilyn Cade was trying to champion the idea of an ICANN foundation or > rather funds-in-trust to help with that, if my memory is correct. I am not > sure what has happened to that concern and those ideas since I left the > council. We also had interesting process and relevant discussions with Lee > and our colleagues in the Caribbean during their 2006 regional IGF in > Grenada. > > > > Anyway, the reason why I'm now highlighting "economic diversity" as opposed > to "development" (although I might retain the latter for international > cooperation and UN types consumption) is that "development" brings up > reflexes of assistance on both sides - and I contend even more on the > "donor" side than we may want to think. I personally would rather take a > more entrepreneurship-oriented approach in order to foster participation of > developing countries in the information economy at all levels possible; I'd > like to see a global IG regime that gives "equal opportunity" to players > from all across the globe, not only those who can afford lawyers' fee in > some country(ies) where they are the highest in the world (as if linguistic > divide was not enough burden to many of them). And as a scholar, I'd like to > be able to bring sound and robust arguments, based on research findings, to > bear on that issue. > > > > In the mean time it will be useful to see, from your workshop, how IG > issues can be framed in relation to the other development agendas in > international affairs and global governance. I look forwards to hearing > about your proceedings and conclusions. I wish every success to your > workshop, Tijani's, the rest of the workshops, to all IGC participants and > to the whole Forum. > > > > Best, > > > > Mawaki > > > > On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 5:03 AM, William Drake < > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: > > Hello Tijani, > > > > On Sep 12, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > > > > > > *Workshop #:* 61 > > *Theme:* New gTLDs and IDNs for > Development > > *Date:* Tuesday 14 > September 2010 > > *Time slot:* 09:00 - 11:00 > > *Venue:* Room 3 > > > > > > This looks very interesting, I wish it didn't overlap with the Setting the > Scene session I have to attend (we'll be talking about some of the > background papers included in the Sharm book, which are mostly by IGC > members). I also wish it had popped up on the radars of the planning group > for the IG4D main session; don't know how we missed it, very sorry. But > while you're not listed as a "feeder workshop" for that session, it would be > great if you could anyway provide an input on its main conclusions etc. > > > > BTW, the relationships between new gTLDs, IDNs and development will also be > an element of a more broadly framed workshop, the fourth I've organized on > the notion of a development agenda, description below. It'd be good if we > could pursue some synergies between the two, as well as with other > IG4D-related events, e.g. the main session, George Sadowsky's workshop WS > 174 (which precedes mine in the same room), etc. Development is much more > prominent on this year's agenda than in previous IGFs, but it would take > some initiative to build on that going forward. > > > > Best, > > > > Bill > > ——————— > > > > Workshop 165, Day 2, Wednesday, 15 September, 16:30-18:30, Room 3 > > A Development Agenda Approach to Internet Names and Numbers > > A development agenda can be defined as a holistic program of analysis and > action intended to mainstream development considerations into the procedures > and policy outputs of global governance mechanisms. While there have been > concerted efforts to pursue such agendas in the multilateral institutions > dealing with issues like international trade and intellectual property, > there has been no corresponding initiative with respect to global Internet > governance. Hence, a series of interrelated workshops has been organized at > the Rio, Hyderabad and Sharm el Sheikh IGF meetings to help foster dialogue > on the possible establishment of such an initiative. Over the course of > these events, participants have considered the potential value-added of a > development agenda; fleshed out its broad institutional and substantive > contours; identified some particularly important linkages between internet > governance and development that merit further consideration; and in light of > the WSIS principles, agreed that the IGF is the most appropriate venue in > which to devise an approach to mainstreaming development within Internet > governance institutions, as applicable. Building on these foundations, the > next step in the process should be to test the general model in a specific > issue-area and institutional context in order to identify possible > refinements. > > Accordingly, the proposed Vilnius workshop would apply the development > agenda approach to the field of Internet names and numbers, with particular > attention being devoted to the ICANN nexus. In addition to advancing IG4D > efforts within the IGF, the workshop also could provide food for thought to > the growing dialogue within ICANN on how to better address development > concerns. The three main elements of a development agenda to be considered > would include: a) capacity building partnerships to enable the > effective participation of governmental and nongovernmental actors in > technical dialogues and decision making processes; b) institutional > measures---e.g. with respect to information overload, working methods and > culture, and possibly development-oriented focal points---that could > facilitate increased engagement; and c) identification of the > substantive policy issues that may raise distinctive developmental > considerations and to which a developmental orientation could usefully be > brought to bear. > > Speakers > > William J. Drake [moderator] > Senior Associate, Centre for International Governance, Graduate Institute > of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland > > Olga Cavalli > Adviser for Technology, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Government of > Argentina > > Rafik Dammak > Research Student in Interdisciplinary Information Studies, the University > of Tokyo; Tunisia > > Zahid Jamil > Senior Partner, Jamil & Jamil, Barrister-at-Law; and Chairman, Domain Name > Dispute Resolution Center; Pakistan > > Alice Munyua > Convenor, East African IGF and Kenya ICT Action Network, > Communications Commission, Government of Kenya > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies; XS4All Chair, > University of Delft; Partner, the Internet Governance Project; USA > > Mike Silber > General Manager: Regulatory, Neotel; Management Committee member, South > African Internet Service Providers' Association; Member of the Board of > Directors, ICANN; South Africa > > Jean-Jacques Subrenat > Member of the Board of Directors, ICANN; France > > > Institutional Co-Sponsors > > Centre for International Governance, Graduate Institute for International > Studies [lead; academic] > > Association for Progressive Communications [civil society] > > Government of Argentina (TBC) [government] > > Institute for Internet Policy & Law, Beijing Normal University [academic] > > Council of Europe [international organization] > > Faculty of Social Sciences, the University of Buenos Aires [academic] > > Federal Office of Communication, Government of Switzerland [government] > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > 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 Mon Sep 13 23:23:59 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 06:23:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] Invitation => IG4D In-Reply-To: References: <4C26AF32BBA04D299578F1D818674760@MTBJ> Message-ID: <6ADF4A56-E9F2-41C2-9E73-F3B6372EAAC6@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Fouad, Thanks for your nice note, glad you liked it, missed typos and all (no copy editor). It certainly gave me many new reasons to curse MS Word, which screwed up the formatting in new and interesting ways each time the doc moved from one computer to the next. I'm frankly still a bit amazed the UN prints books right off someone's file, but that's what the budget allows. Milton's new book in my MIT series, which we released at GigaNet yesterday, looks a lot better. Anyway, Bill On Sep 14, 2010, at 2:10 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Dear Bill, > > As you mention the IG Publication for this year, I have to personally > congratulate you and the contributors to this publication for doing an > amazingly wonderful job!!! Hats off because this has become an > important documentation to read and keep. I appreciate your > contribution on IG4D as it is a very helpful starter as well as to > help people get up to speed on contemporary issues with regards to the > relation between IG and development! > > This is a very important contribution to both the IGF and the IG4D > session that will not go un-noticed! > > Best Regards > > Fouad Bajwa > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:50 AM, William Drake > wrote: >> Hi Mawaki >> Thanks for all this, I certainly think research is needed and am open to >> collaboration etc. I have a chapter in the Sharm book being released >> tomorrow on the development agenda thing that suggests inter alia the >> formation of an open ms working group (or whatever is the locally acceptable >> term, if WG is still banned) that would gather analyze share info and be >> supported by a secretariat research capability. I suppose the chances of >> anything remotely like that depend on whether the UNGA process provides some >> 2.0 push. In the more likely event that this doesn't happen, then it'd be up >> to interested researchers/institutions to break the ground and see if the >> effort garners support over time. If that doesn't gather big mo then still >> smaller individual efforts like a meeting/book project are always possible. >> All depends on whether the core view that IG4D is a worthy construct that >> matters and merits further consideration moves through the usual gauntlet >> and emerges intact; if it gets picked apart as unnecessary, not >> "constructive" and worth pursuing blah blah blah then the minimalist route >> will be all there is. Look what happened with the WSIS Principles >> discussion, we had one rather three hour session in Sharm, it was declared >> by those who matter to be unsatisfying rather than a useful if overly >> constrained first effort to build on, and now apparently that part of the >> IGF mandate doesn't merit any further collective work. IG4D could go the >> same way if people don't say we want more. I hope at least IGC will… >> Anyway, yes let's keep the line open. >> Best, >> Bill >> On Sep 12, 2010, at 7:19 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >> Hi Bill, >> Very interesting topic! Do you think you guys might also address or come up >> with some research agenda items on that? You may have noticed my "mission in >> action" status in policy advocacy or activism over the last couple years >> (and as you probably know, there's something dogging me I really needed and >> still need to get out of the way) but my past/recent experience in IG line >> of action has made me want to take on a research agenda on "IG and Economic >> Diversity" (or IG4D if you will)... So you all may take this either as a >> warning ;-) or... as a call for future collaboration. >> Seriously, I think a research agenda is warranted (in policy, political >> economy, or social sciences in general) and I'd be interested to hear about >> any developments on that front and to take part in any relevant effort when >> the time comes. >> From a practice perspective, I was involved (as Diplo fellow to WGIG >> Secretariat) in the effort led by Karen Banks among WGIG members to draft >> the final report chapter on development, but it was a beginning, a good one, >> and to my recollection the discourse at that point was rather generally ICT >> than specifically IG. Then it was the "ICANN nexus" as you point out that >> has been the most eye-opening for me. During relevant policy development >> processes on the GNSO council I repeatedly raised concerns about, among >> other things, the cost structure of new gTLD applications with in >> mind potential registry-wannabe's from developing regions. We discussed with >> fellow council members about options to address the issue, and I remember >> Marilyn Cade was trying to champion the idea of an ICANN foundation or >> rather funds-in-trust to help with that, if my memory is correct. I am not >> sure what has happened to that concern and those ideas since I left the >> council. We also had interesting process and relevant discussions with Lee >> and our colleagues in the Caribbean during their 2006 regional IGF in >> Grenada. >> Anyway, the reason why I'm now highlighting "economic diversity" as opposed >> to "development" (although I might retain the latter for international >> cooperation and UN types consumption) is that "development" brings up >> reflexes of assistance on both sides - and I contend even more on the >> "donor" side than we may want to think. I personally would rather take a >> more entrepreneurship-oriented approach in order to foster participation of >> developing countries in the information economy at all levels possible; I'd >> like to see a global IG regime that gives "equal opportunity" to players >> from all across the globe, not only those who can afford lawyers' fee in >> some country(ies) where they are the highest in the world (as if linguistic >> divide was not enough burden to many of them). And as a scholar, I'd like to >> be able to bring sound and robust arguments, based on research findings, to >> bear on that issue. >> In the mean time it will be useful to see, from your workshop, how IG issues >> can be framed in relation to the other development agendas in international >> affairs and global governance. I look forwards to hearing about your >> proceedings and conclusions. I wish every success to your workshop, >> Tijani's, the rest of the workshops, to all IGC participants and to the >> whole Forum. >> Best, >> Mawaki >> On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 5:03 AM, William Drake >> wrote: >>> >>> Hello Tijani, >>> On Sep 12, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Workshop #: 61 >>> >>> Theme: New gTLDs and IDNs for >>> Development >>> >>> Date: Tuesday 14 >>> September 2010 >>> >>> Time slot: 09:00 - 11:00 >>> >>> Venue: Room 3 >>> >>> This looks very interesting, I wish it didn't overlap with the Setting the >>> Scene session I have to attend (we'll be talking about some of the >>> background papers included in the Sharm book, which are mostly by IGC >>> members). I also wish it had popped up on the radars of the planning group >>> for the IG4D main session; don't know how we missed it, very sorry. But >>> while you're not listed as a "feeder workshop" for that session, it would be >>> great if you could anyway provide an input on its main conclusions etc. >>> BTW, the relationships between new gTLDs, IDNs and development will also >>> be an element of a more broadly framed workshop, the fourth I've organized >>> on the notion of a development agenda, description below. It'd be good if >>> we could pursue some synergies between the two, as well as with other >>> IG4D-related events, e.g. the main session, George Sadowsky's workshop WS >>> 174 (which precedes mine in the same room), etc. Development is much more >>> prominent on this year's agenda than in previous IGFs, but it would take >>> some initiative to build on that going forward. >>> Best, >>> Bill >>> ——————— >>> Workshop 165, Day 2, Wednesday, 15 September, 16:30-18:30, Room 3 >>> >>> A Development Agenda Approach to Internet Names and Numbers >>> >>> A development agenda can be defined as a holistic program of analysis and >>> action intended to mainstream development considerations into the procedures >>> and policy outputs of global governance mechanisms. While there have been >>> concerted efforts to pursue such agendas in the multilateral institutions >>> dealing with issues like international trade and intellectual property, >>> there has been no corresponding initiative with respect to global Internet >>> governance. Hence, a series of interrelated workshops has been organized at >>> the Rio, Hyderabad and Sharm el Sheikh IGF meetings to help foster dialogue >>> on the possible establishment of such an initiative. Over the course of >>> these events, participants have considered the potential value-added of a >>> development agenda; fleshed out its broad institutional and substantive >>> contours; identified some particularly important linkages between internet >>> governance and development that merit further consideration; and in light of >>> the WSIS principles, agreed that the IGF is the most appropriate venue in >>> which to devise an approach to mainstreaming development within Internet >>> governance institutions, as applicable. Building on these foundations, the >>> next step in the process should be to test the general model in a specific >>> issue-area and institutional context in order to identify possible >>> refinements. >>> >>> Accordingly, the proposed Vilnius workshop would apply the development >>> agenda approach to the field of Internet names and numbers, with particular >>> attention being devoted to the ICANN nexus. In addition to advancing IG4D >>> efforts within the IGF, the workshop also could provide food for thought to >>> the growing dialogue within ICANN on how to better address development >>> concerns. The three main elements of a development agenda to be considered >>> would include: a) capacity building partnerships to enable the >>> effective participation of governmental and nongovernmental actors in >>> technical dialogues and decision making processes; b) institutional >>> measures---e.g. with respect to information overload, working methods and >>> culture, and possibly development-oriented focal points---that could >>> facilitate increased engagement; and c) identification of the >>> substantive policy issues that may raise distinctive developmental >>> considerations and to which a developmental orientation could usefully be >>> brought to bear. >>> >>> Speakers >>> >>> William J. Drake [moderator] >>> Senior Associate, Centre for International Governance, Graduate Institute >>> of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland >>> >>> Olga Cavalli >>> Adviser for Technology, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Government of >>> Argentina >>> >>> Rafik Dammak >>> Research Student in Interdisciplinary Information Studies, the University >>> of Tokyo; Tunisia >>> >>> Zahid Jamil >>> Senior Partner, Jamil & Jamil, Barrister-at-Law; and Chairman, Domain Name >>> Dispute Resolution Center; Pakistan >>> >>> Alice Munyua >>> Convenor, East African IGF and Kenya ICT Action Network, >>> Communications Commission, Government of Kenya >>> >>> Milton Mueller >>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies; XS4All >>> Chair, University of Delft; Partner, the Internet Governance Project; USA >>> >>> Mike Silber >>> General Manager: Regulatory, Neotel; Management Committee member, South >>> African Internet Service Providers' Association; Member of the Board of >>> Directors, ICANN; South Africa >>> >>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat >>> Member of the Board of Directors, ICANN; France >>> >>> >>> Institutional Co-Sponsors >>> >>> Centre for International Governance, Graduate Institute for International >>> Studies [lead; academic] >>> >>> Association for Progressive Communications [civil society] >>> >>> Government of Argentina (TBC) [government] >>> >>> Institute for Internet Policy & Law, Beijing Normal University [academic] >>> >>> Council of Europe [international organization] >>> >>> Faculty of Social Sciences, the University of Buenos Aires [academic] >>> >>> Federal Office of Communication, Government of Switzerland [government] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Sep 14 00:24:28 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 06:24:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] WG: Vilnjus References: <7E975BF4-0E34-4829-B7EA-3DC88B9A1C3B@tucows.com> <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D3450478B7@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070E9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070F9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> INVITATION ICANN - NomCom Cocktail Are you interested to apply for a leadership position within ICANN? Do you want to know how ICANN selects its Board Directors, Council and Committee Members? Would you like to share some information with ICANN officials who went through the NomCom process? Then come to the ICANN NomCom Cocktail Reception at the 5th IGF in Vilnjus. When: Thursday, September 16, 2010, 17.30 - 18.30 Where: Restaurant ADSUM in the LITEXPO Conference Center Programme: Welcome & Introduction: Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Chair of the 2010 NomCom ICANNs Mission & Core Values: Rod Beckstrom, CEO & President of ICANN Personal Experiences: Bertrand de la Chapelle, new selected ICANN Director ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For 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: INVITATION NomCom.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 11594 bytes Desc: INVITATION NomCom.docx URL: From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Sep 14 01:53:14 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 01:23:14 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGF, live webcast is at http://webcast.intgovforum.org/ Message-ID: <4C8F0DCA.8020401@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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Sep 14 02:37:11 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 03:37:11 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF, live webcast is at http://webcast.intgovforum.org/ In-Reply-To: <4C8F0DCA.8020401@gmail.com> References: <4C8F0DCA.8020401@gmail.com> Message-ID: All the links to access webex sessions and participate remotely are available in IGF website. If you are required to use a password, please type IGF2010 Thank you On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > IGF live webcast is at http://webcast.intgovforum.org/ > -- > > 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 > -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Sep 14 02:54:39 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:54:39 +1200 Subject: [governance] IGF, live webcast is at http://webcast.intgovforum.org/ In-Reply-To: References: <4C8F0DCA.8020401@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Marilia. On 9/14/10, Marilia Maciel wrote: > All the links to access webex sessions and participate remotely are > available in IGF website. > If you are required to use a password, please type IGF2010 > > Thank you > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> IGF live webcast is at http://webcast.intgovforum.org/ >> -- >> >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > -- 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 hempalshrestha at gmail.com Tue Sep 14 03:14:44 2010 From: hempalshrestha at gmail.com (Hempal Shrestha) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:59:44 +0545 Subject: [governance] WG: Vilnjus In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070F9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <7E975BF4-0E34-4829-B7EA-3DC88B9A1C3B@tucows.com> <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D3450478B7@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070E9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A070F9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Thanks Wolfgang for sharing the invitation. For other user, who might wondering (like me) as what information the .docx file in the attachment might contain. The contents has been fully copied and pasted in the email itself by Wolfgang. Best Regards, Hempal Shrestha P.S: Participating from a beautiful city in Nepal, Pokhara along with the visually challenged community members at IEC. They are also attempting to join the IGF in the cyberspace. 2010/9/14 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > > > INVITATION > > > > > > ICANN - NomCom Cocktail > > > > > > Are you interested to apply for a leadership position within ICANN? Do you > want to know how ICANN selects its Board Directors, Council and Committee > Members? Would you like to share some information with ICANN officials who > went through the NomCom process? > > Then come to the ICANN NomCom Cocktail Reception at the 5th IGF in Vilnjus. > > > > When: Thursday, September 16, 2010, 17.30 - 18.30 > > Where: Restaurant ADSUM in the LITEXPO Conference Center > > > > > > Programme: > > > > Welcome & Introduction: > > Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Chair of the 2010 NomCom > > > > ICANNs Mission & Core Values: > > Rod Beckstrom, CEO & President of ICANN > > > > Personal Experiences: > > Bertrand de la Chapelle, new selected ICANN Director > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 ICT4 Dev & Edu Practitioner, KM/S Facilitator, IT Consultant 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Sep 14 03:16:05 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 19:16:05 +1200 Subject: [governance] IGF, live webcast is at http://webcast.intgovforum.org/ In-Reply-To: References: <4C8F0DCA.8020401@gmail.com> Message-ID: Marilia, Please check if I am on, my skype is salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro On 9/14/10, Marilia Maciel wrote: > All the links to access webex sessions and participate remotely are > available in IGF website. > If you are required to use a password, please type IGF2010 > > Thank you > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> IGF live webcast is at http://webcast.intgovforum.org/ >> -- >> >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > -- 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 LisaH at global-partners.co.uk Tue Sep 14 05:04:46 2010 From: LisaH at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:04:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] REMINDER - IRP Buisness meeting TODAY at 14.00, room 8 Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C6F118681@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Hi all I hope that you can join us for the IR business meeting today in room 8 at 14.00. We need as many coalition members (and new faces) as possible to help us strategise and work out how to grow the coalition. See you there! Thanks, Lisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 14 08:09:40 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 05:09:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGF, live webcast is at http://webcast.intgovforum.org/ In-Reply-To: References: <4C8F0DCA.8020401@gmail.com> Message-ID: <404630.92888.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks a lot. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah ________________________________ From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Marilia Maciel Cc: Ginger Paque Sent: Tue, 14 September, 2010 11:54:39 Subject: Re: [governance] IGF, live webcast is at http://webcast.intgovforum.org/ Thanks Marilia. On 9/14/10, Marilia Maciel wrote: > All the links to access webex sessions and participate remotely are > available in IGF website. > If you are required to use a password, please type IGF2010 > > Thank you > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >>  IGF live webcast is at http://webcast.intgovforum.org/ >> -- >> >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > -- Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro P.O.Box 17862 Suva Fiji Islands Cell: +679 9982851 Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj "Wisdom is far better than riches." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 14 08:32:17 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:32:17 +0300 Subject: [governance] As requested... Jabber Group Chat Message-ID: <7FAF7ED7-5AA2-4391-8014-382C11CEF121@ciroap.org> As suggested, I have just added the means for you to connect to the IGF community chat room using Jabber. Jabber is supported by many common chat programs, including iChat, Google Talk, Adium, Pidgin, Psi, Trillian and others. This means there are now three ways to connect to exactly the same chat: * Using Jabber, join a group chat at the address #igf at irc.igf-online.net. Some Jabber clients may require you to separate this out into a room name (#igf) and a server name (irc.igf-online.net). * Using IRC - this is unchanged - connecting your IRC client to the channel #igf on the chat.freenode.net server. * Using the Web - also unchanged - at http://igf-online.net/chat.php -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 Sep 14 08:48:09 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:48:09 +0300 Subject: [governance] Minutes of IGC meeting Message-ID: <5C0F69C8-4DD4-45D0-83EB-33A6043020DA@ciroap.org> Here are draft minutes of yesterday's meeting of the Internet Governance Caucus. Date: 13 September 2010 Place: LITEXPO room 3, Vilnius, Lithuania Chairs: Ginger Paque and Jeremy Malcolm 1. Review of activities since last IGF meeting Since our last general meeting at the IGF we have: * Put out a consensus statement on taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting, which was focussed on reforms to the IGF. * Put out another statement with suggested session themes for the Vilnius meeting. * Written an open letter to the UN Secretary General about plans to reduce the role of the CSTD in the IGF review. * Participated in the February open consultation and the May planning meeting. * Put forward three workshop proposals for the Vilniue meeting, all of which were successful. * Our coordinators were accepted as speakers for the opening and closing session in Vilnius. 2. Opening and closing statements Ginger is taking the opening statement and will look at civil society's role in the enhanced cooperation process. Jeremy will take up the issues that Ginger doesn't cover, and maybe reiterate some that she did, in the closing statement. We are going to try to cover all of the issues that were floated in the poll, but giving the most attention to those that received the most support from IGC members. Parminder expressed concern that not many people had given input (other than via the poll) into the content of the statements. Bill Drake (with whom Parminder agreed) said we should talk about an development agenda for IG, mentioning the possibility of intersessional work. There was also discussion of the success, or otherwise, of dynamic coalitions which some consider are too "fluffy", don't draw participation from governments, and overall haven't worked well. Jeremy indicated that he would mention the need to revisit the concept and perhaps develop them into a "version 2". Bill suggested this could be phrased as stating that thematic working groups are "one of the ideas on the table". 3. IGC co-coordinator elections According to our charter, the co-coordinator elections are due to be held around now. Ginger's position is up for renewal, we are seeking expressions of interest now. All present were encouraged to nominate themselves or other people for the job. Izumi and Parminder said that they would consider nominating. There was discussion of the format of the voting, and it was decided that we would use our own software from now on, and have no further need for the software hosted at Syracuse University. Jeremy agreed to set a date for elections about one week after the IGF ends. 4. IGC voting procedures Further to the last agenda item, there was discussion of previous problems with voting fraud, such as people who are registered under multiple emails, and an anomaly with multiple votes being recorded from the same IP address. Parminder expressed the view that this was a serious matter. Jeremy and Ginger indicated that, whilst our charter limits us from eliminating the potential for fraud altogether, special attention will be given to the issue of voting fraud this time around. 5. IGC charter review There was little interest expressed in reviewing the IGC charter. On this basis, this agenda item will be removed for the time being until further interest emerges. 6. MAG questionnaire Jeremy indicated that he would present a draft statement based around the discussion of the MAG questionnaire on the list, within the next few weeks. 7. CSTD IGF review It was reported that the CSTD is to form a working group to suggest improvements to the IGF, and there will be a planning meeting for this on Thursday at 6:30pm. Parminder informed us that the working group should be operational after the UN Assembly says yes to the mandate renewal next month. Some members have already started an informal consultation, but others are against the idea. He will report any further developments. 8. General business There was no other business calling for report. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 vanda at uol.com.br Tue Sep 14 11:05:16 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:05:16 -0300 Subject: [governance] Minutes of IGC meeting In-Reply-To: <5C0F69C8-4DD4-45D0-83EB-33A6043020DA@ciroap.org> References: <5C0F69C8-4DD4-45D0-83EB-33A6043020DA@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <01dc01cb541e$40d62840$c28278c0$@com.br> Thanks Jeremy for this clear resume of all issues. I am following as I can the meetings from my office. I had no condition to travel this time. Success to you all! Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 Tel: + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob: + 55 11 8181 1464 From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 9:48 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Minutes of IGC meeting Here are draft minutes of yesterday's meeting of the Internet Governance Caucus. Date: 13 September 2010 Place: LITEXPO room 3, Vilnius, Lithuania Chairs: Ginger Paque and Jeremy Malcolm 1. Review of activities since last IGF meeting Since our last general meeting at the IGF we have: * Put out a consensus statement on taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting, which was focussed on reforms to the IGF. * Put out another statement with suggested session themes for the Vilnius meeting. * Written an open letter to the UN Secretary General about plans to reduce the role of the CSTD in the IGF review. * Participated in the February open consultation and the May planning meeting. * Put forward three workshop proposals for the Vilniue meeting, all of which were successful. * Our coordinators were accepted as speakers for the opening and closing session in Vilnius. 2. Opening and closing statements Ginger is taking the opening statement and will look at civil society's role in the enhanced cooperation process. Jeremy will take up the issues that Ginger doesn't cover, and maybe reiterate some that she did, in the closing statement. We are going to try to cover all of the issues that were floated in the poll, but giving the most attention to those that received the most support from IGC members. Parminder expressed concern that not many people had given input (other than via the poll) into the content of the statements. Bill Drake (with whom Parminder agreed) said we should talk about an development agenda for IG, mentioning the possibility of intersessional work. There was also discussion of the success, or otherwise, of dynamic coalitions which some consider are too "fluffy", don't draw participation from governments, and overall haven't worked well. Jeremy indicated that he would mention the need to revisit the concept and perhaps develop them into a "version 2". Bill suggested this could be phrased as stating that thematic working groups are "one of the ideas on the table". 3. IGC co-coordinator elections According to our charter, the co-coordinator elections are due to be held around now. Ginger's position is up for renewal, we are seeking expressions of interest now. All present were encouraged to nominate themselves or other people for the job. Izumi and Parminder said that they would consider nominating. There was discussion of the format of the voting, and it was decided that we would use our own software from now on, and have no further need for the software hosted at Syracuse University. Jeremy agreed to set a date for elections about one week after the IGF ends. 4. IGC voting procedures Further to the last agenda item, there was discussion of previous problems with voting fraud, such as people who are registered under multiple emails, and an anomaly with multiple votes being recorded from the same IP address. Parminder expressed the view that this was a serious matter. Jeremy and Ginger indicated that, whilst our charter limits us from eliminating the potential for fraud altogether, special attention will be given to the issue of voting fraud this time around. 5. IGC charter review There was little interest expressed in reviewing the IGC charter. On this basis, this agenda item will be removed for the time being until further interest emerges. 6. MAG questionnaire Jeremy indicated that he would present a draft statement based around the discussion of the MAG questionnaire on the list, within the next few weeks. 7. CSTD IGF review It was reported that the CSTD is to form a working group to suggest improvements to the IGF, and there will be a planning meeting for this on Thursday at 6:30pm. Parminder informed us that the working group should be operational after the UN Assembly says yes to the mandate renewal next month. Some members have already started an informal consultation, but others are against the idea. He will report any further developments. 8. General business There was no other business calling for report. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 Sep 14 13:32:09 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 01:32:09 +0800 Subject: [governance] A reminder of our three IGC workshops - please support them Message-ID: <80195aa24e1e00629822f6911942d1b7@localhost> Name: Innovative Internet governance idea and approaches – Open Space for Sharing Date: 16 September, 9:00am - 11:00am Location: Room 6 Details: http://igf-online.net/?p=631--- Name: Transnational (or trans-border) enforcement of a new information order - Issues of rights and democracy Date: 16 September, 11:30am - 1:30pm Location: Room 6 Details: http://igf-online.net/?p=639 --- Name: Successes and failures of Internet Governance, 1995 – 2010, and looking forward to WSIS 2015 Date: 17 September, 11:30am - 1:30pm Location: Room 5 Details: http://igf-online.net/?p=675 -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599CI IS 50Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 [1] Read our email confidentiality notice [2]. Don't print this email unless necessary. Links: ------ [1] http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 [2] http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From LisaH at global-partners.co.uk Tue Sep 14 15:16:44 2010 From: LisaH at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:16:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] IRP Coalition meeting and launch of Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C6F118692@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Hi all Just a quick reminder about our IRP official dynamic coalition meeting tomorrow and the launch of version 1.0 of the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet - the fruits of everyone's hard work and efforts over the past months. Please come along! We're in room 9 at 9.00. Agenda pasted below. Coalition members - we'll be in the room from 8.30 to run through the agenda. We want it to be as participatory as possible - so please come early so we can work everything out. Thanks to those who came to our strategy meeting today - it was productive. Notes to follow on IRP list soon. Robert Bodle is twittering from afar using hash tag #igf10 . Would be great if people could join him! And for those not with us in Vilnius, please do join remotely via the IGF website. Apologies for cross posting. See you tomorrow! All the best, Lisa Workshop Agenda 09.00-11.00, Wednesday 15th September (Day 2), Room 9 1) Introduction to the coalition a. Brief background and history. b. Aims, working methods, ambitions. 2) Human rights at the IGF a. “Strategy” as defined in business meeting. b. Human rights at the regional IGFs report – Dixie Hawtin. 3) The Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet a. Introduction and background b. Taking it forward after the IGF (update from business meeting). c. Consultation on the Charter. i. Brief presentation on the contents and nature of the Charter (Wolfgang Benedek - 10 mins) ii. Broad questions and comments. iii. Discussion on scope of the Charter: Anything missing? Anything to be taken out? (15 mins) iv. Specific issues for discussion: (note - we probably won't have time to cover all of these) 1. IP and A2K: Balancing need for copyright with access to knowledge. 2. Mobile internet – what new issues are raised? 3. Privacy: Anonymity: Relationship to security, privacy and free expression. Digital identity: Definition, and relationship with privacy, security. Should there be a right to forget? 4. Right to access: Is it a right? Adding meaningful access. v. Quick polls on other outstanding issues 1. Internet or internet 2. Name of Charter 3. MDGs 4) Wrap up and close Facilitation: Lisa Horner, Coalition Chair / Global Partners & Associates Remote moderation: Marianne Franklin, Goldsmiths University____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mazzone at ebu.ch Tue Sep 14 16:18:16 2010 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 22:18:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] REMINDER - IRP Buisness meeting TODAY at 14.00, Message-ID: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF4A12AE66F@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> Sorry Lisa, I cannot move because was with my president that arrived at the same time and I need to brief him.. There is anything that I need to know about the outcome of the meeting ? Giacomo ________________________________ From: Lisa Horner To: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org ; governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Tue Sep 14 11:04:46 2010 Subject: [governance] REMINDER - IRP Buisness meeting TODAY at 14.00, room 8 Hi all I hope that you can join us for the IR business meeting today in room 8 at 14.00. We need as many coalition members (and new faces) as possible to help us strategise and work out how to grow the coalition. See you there! Thanks, Lisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 15 00:42:57 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:12:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Invitation Reminder : Workshop on International Trade and Internet Governance today. Message-ID: Hello Please attend the workshop on Workshop No 80 "International Trade and Internet Governance" This workshop is today, September 15, 2010, Wednesday, at Room 3, 9 am - 11 am. An updated list of panelists along with links to their brief biographies are at page http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2010View&wspid=80 \ For any further details please get in touch with *Sébastien Bachollet, * *Sebastien (at) Bachellet (dot) com* *+33 6 07 66 89 33 (by sms)* * * Thank you. Sivasubramanian M 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 gpaque at gmail.com Wed Sep 15 01:40:40 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 01:10:40 -0430 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation IGF link Message-ID: <4C905C58.4010105@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 Wed Sep 15 02:30:55 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 02:00:55 -0430 Subject: [governance] CS IGC presentation yesterday, opening session IGF Message-ID: <4C90681F.8000500@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 andersj at elon.edu Wed Sep 15 05:05:17 2010 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 05:05:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] Share your views for the record In-Reply-To: <4C90681F.8000500@gmail.com> Message-ID: To those who were able to travel to Vilnius, The team from Imagining the Internet has a location in the IGF Village where we are recording your views in a survey of participants from all sectors. We would be honored if you would set aside 10 or 15 minutes of your time to share your thoughts. A number of people from this list gave input on the question set, as did some people from the staff at the UN secretariat for IGF. To get an idea of the way these interviews are published, you can look at the discussions recorded last year in Egypt here: http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_egypt/survey.xhtml If you have participated in our interviews in previous years, we do welcome you to participate once again. This is a way to share your thoughts in a collection of input that may be used to inform policy, and it also serves as a documentation of our people and our time. The US Library of Congress is archiving this Web material as it is collected and posted. The question set had to primarily include questions of general interest to people outside the IGF. While all questions are tied to the present and future of people as the Internet evolves, there¹s just one IGF-specific question. The questions were purposely left as open as possible so people would have the opportunity to speak about what they find most important. Following is a preview. Thanks to all who have assisted us! -- Janna Anderson A HUMAN RIGHT? Is Internet access a fundamental human right? Explain. Why? THE INTERNET FIVE YEARS FROM NOW: Intermediaries are at work as the Internet grows and people seek security, convenience, information filters, and so on. Five years from now will the Internet be more open and accessible, about the same, or less so? Will it be fragmented? How do you see this evolving? ABOUT IGF: With an extended mandate to 2015, how can IGF change the world? What are the top goals, the issues, the approaches, the differences that might be made? YOUR HOPE FOR THE FUTURE: What is your greatest hope for the future of the Internet? YOUR CONCERN FOR THE FUTURE: What is your greatest fear or concern for the future of the Internet? WHAT DOES THE INTERNET MEAN FOR THE FUTURE OF THE WORLD? Say it in 10 seconds or less. -- Janna Quitney Anderson Director of www.imaginingtheinternet.org Associate Professor of Communications Director of Internet Projects School of Communications Elon University andersj at elon.edu (336) 278-5733 (o) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Sep 15 07:11:56 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 14:11:56 +0300 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation IGF link In-Reply-To: <4C905C58.4010105@gmail.com> References: <4C905C58.4010105@gmail.com> Message-ID: thanks ginger, I was just firing up webex when my ups (and mains) power went out, which reminded me once again which critical internet resources govts in the developing world should focus on :@ rgds, mctim On 9/15/10, Ginger Paque wrote: > Remote Participation Platform is available here. > -- > > 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. -- 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 fulvio.frati at unimi.it Wed Sep 15 08:24:12 2010 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 14:24:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] eHR-KM 2011: First International Workshop on Knowledge Management and e-Human Resources Practices for Innovation Message-ID: <013f01cb54d0$e7a65700$b6f30500$@unimi.it> [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- *** Call for Papers *** eHR-KM First International Workshop on Knowledge Management and e-Human Resources Practices for Innovation within the 6th International Conference on Professional Knowledge Management (WM2011) 21-23 February 2011, Innsbruck http://wm-konferenz2011.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- It is widely recognized that Knowledge Management (KM) can provide an organization with the capability to understand customers' needs, effectively extract new ideas from suppliers and customers alike, and turn them into innovative products and services. Human Resource Management (HRM) plays an equal, if not more important, role in building and sharing the right set of employee competencies that help organizations to successfully compete. In many organizations, Human Resource (HR) executives and KM experts have found that developing an IT infrastructure that allows the free exchange of employee experience and expertise has increased the company's competitiveness. Many companies are now aware that timely capturing their employees collective knowledge is the only way to preserve their investments in human capital. As a result, some of them have invested to develop a corporate culture of sharing knowledge and experience, capable of convincing employees to share their expertise. However, how to enable synergy between KM and HRM to foster open innovation is still a relatively new issue. Traditionally, innovation has been seen as the responsibility of a R&D team or of a business unit. Recent experience has shown that innovation is largely dependent on creative individuals working in an environment that spans multiple organizations and includes, beyond regular employees, consultants and suppliers. Knowledge-supported HR can play a key role in attracting and keeping the most innovative people and partners, creating a culture that supports innovation. This workshop objective is twofold. The first goal is to provide a forum to discuss theoretical models and practical evidence on the effectiveness of knowledge-supported HRM. The second goal is to investigate the connection between the implementation of knowledge-supported HR and the degree of open and employee-driven innovation achieved by organizations. Topics of Interest Topics of interest include (but are not limited to): - Tools and techniques for knowledge-supported HR o Empirical evidence of HR and KM complementarity o Competencies analysis and profile mapping o Capturing and sharing employees knowledge - HR and KM practices for fostering innovation o Support for creativity and serendipity o Rewarding and profiling innovation - IT support for fostering creativity - IT support for knowledge-supported HR o Competence Ontologies o Interoperability of HR and KM systems o Roadmaps Audience The target audience of the workshop is researchers, practitioners and educators, who have experience with the role of human resource in innovation management. A special issue of the International Journal on Knowledge and Learning (IJKL) will be related to the workshop providing a mean for consolidating and disseminating the results. Submission of Papers Paper abstracts should be submitted electronically to the WM2011 submissions system http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=wm2011. At least one author of each accepted paper is expected to participate in the conference and present his/her work. Accepted papers will be considered for publication in a Special Issue of the International Journal of Knowledge and Learning (IJKL) (http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalCODE=ijkl), scheduled for the second quarter of 2011. Authors of accepted papers will be invited to submit extended articles (a typical size is between 7000 and 9000 words) and a number of 6-8 papers will be selected for the special issue after a second review round. Workshop organizers - Paolo Ceravolo, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy - Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy - Christian Guetl, Graz University of Technology, Austria - Gianluca Elia, Scuola Superiore ISUFI, Italy - Mustafa Jarrar, Birzeit University, Palestine Program Committee - Vanessa Chang, Curtin University of Technology, Australia - Peter Dolog, Aalborg University, Denmark - Henry Leung, University of Sydney, Australia - Wei Lui, University of Western Autralia, Australia - Kees-Jan vanDorp, EADTU, The Netherlands - Dr. Miguel-Angel Sicilia, University of Alcalá - Dr. Maria Vargas-Vera, Open UNiversity - Dr. Shantha Liyanage, Macquarie Graduate School of Management - Dr. Andrew L.S. Goh, University of South Australia - Prof. Amit P. Sheth, University of Georgia - Prof. Irma Becerra-Fernandez, University Park Campus - Prof. Eduardo Bueno Campos, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid - Prof. Tak-Wai Chan, National Central University - Dr. Vladan Devedzic, University of Belgrade - Dr. Martin Dzbor, Open University - Prof. John Edwards, Aston University - Dr. Deniz Eseryel, University of Oklahoma - Dr. John Gordon, Applied Knowledge Research Institute - Prof. Kai Hakkarainen, University of Helsinki - Prof. Tu Bao Ho, School of Knowledge Science - Prof. Ashok Jashapara, Loughborough University - Prof. David Jonassen, School of Information Science and Learning Technologies and Program in Educational Psychology - Prof. Nikos Karacapilidis, University of Patras - Prof. Laszlo Z. Karvalics, University of Szeged - Prof. Christopher Kwok-Tung Yeung, Nanyang Technological University - Prof. Kinshuk, Athabasca University - Prof. Tang-Ho LêTa, Université de Moncton - Dr. Denise LeeDe, NASA Academy of Program and Project Leadership - Prof. Sharman Lichtenstein, Deakin University - Dr. Jie LiuJi, Chinese Academy of Sciences - Prof. Bill Martin, RMIT University - Dr. Ambjörn Naeve, School of Computer Science and Communication - Prof. Eric W.T. Ngai, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University - Dr. Nancy Pouloudi, Athens University of Economics and Business - Prof. Sheizaf Rafaeli, University of Haifa - Dr. Marko Rosic, University of Split - Prof. Demetrios G. SampsonDe, University of Piraeus - Prof. Alain Senteni, University of Mauritius - Dr. Lesley Shneier, World Bank Group - Dr. Klas Eric Soderquist, Athens University of Economics and Business - Prof. Erkki Sutinen, University of Joensuu - Dr. Salvatore Valenti, University of Ancona - Prof. Dr. Gottfried Vossen, University of Muenster - Prof. Roland Wagner, Johannes Kepler University of Linz - Prof. Toyohide Watanabe, Graduate School of Information Science - Dr. Martin Wolpers, Fraunhofer Insitute for Applied Information Technology - Prof. Stephen J.H. Yang, National Central University - Dr. Vipul Kashyap, Partners Healthcare System -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Wed Sep 15 08:51:28 2010 From: pouzin at well.com (Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 14:51:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Open Consultation: Expression of Views on Venue for WSIS Forum 2011 In-Reply-To: <154718490.20100913171201@miit.gov.cn> References: <154718490.20100913171201@miit.gov.cn> Message-ID: Attached are views from EUROLINC FYI -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Eurolinc_WSIS_2011.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 29959 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Sep 15 09:00:42 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 22:00:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] CS IGC presentation yesterday, opening session IGF In-Reply-To: <4C90681F.8000500@gmail.com> References: <4C90681F.8000500@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Ginger, Thank you so much for sharing this, and also, thank you for the speech itself, it picked up what we wanted to convey as Civil Society caucus. It was good to have the procedure for the substance, and the substance you delivered were pretty good. Thank you again for your hard work and dedication. izumi 2010/9/15 Ginger Paque : > > Our presentation is online at: http://bit.ly/bHQLMP Ginger's presentation at > Opening Ceremony > > Here is the text: > Opening Session September 14, 2010 > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Co-coordinator, Civil Society Internet Governance > Caucus > > Good afternoon, excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. I > would like to think that I am speaking for the Civil society Internet > Governance Caucus or IGC, for Civil society, and in fact, for everyone here > today. How can that be? > > Many of us wear several hats indicating our profession or affiliation... > Today, I am speaking as co-coordinator of the Civil society IG caucus, but I > am also Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme online course > coordinator for DiploFoundation... two civil society hats... > > Some of us represent government, business, academia and civil society in > different or overlapping areas of our lives, or at different times of the > day... but in the end, we take off our hats and we are members of society, > individuals, Internet users. We are parents, worried about our children's > safety online. We are Internet users concerned about the security of our > financial data. We are citizens seeking to protect our basic rights to > access, freedom of expression, and information. > > Multistakeholderism – recognised in the Tunis Agenda 2005 - was the biggest > conceptual achievement in WSIS. It was accepted as a guiding principle for > Internet Governance and the IGF in contrast to the intergovernmental > stakeholder approach previously applied. > > This success demands that the IGF continue with its core structure basically > unchanged, while emphasizing the further application of enhanced > cooperation. > > The Civil Society in each of us worries about our human rights, about child > porn, and about being scammed. We worry about finding information in our > native languages. We worry that the richness and diversity of our traditions > will be replaced by a new SMS text language. The Civil society Internet > Governance Caucus asks that we continue to work on these issues together, by > appropriately applying the principles of the basic Human Rights instruments, > such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and supporting the > principle of indivisibility of rights highlighted in the WSIS declaration of > principles. > > This Enhanced Cooperation is not just a process that will address the issue > of Critical Internet Resources. It also allows the IGF to set a precedent to > address all global IG issues. It includes the imperative of developing > policies in addition to the IGF process; a process which is oriented towards > taking wide inputs, deliberating on options, and feeding into the policy > developing processes. These two actions are complementary though clearly > distinct and both must be achieved. > > In this regard we salute the ECOSOC report E/2009/92 adopted last month that > makes these two points. We also note happily that the once-stalled process > of Enhanced Cooperation is now being prioritized, as was mandated by the > WSIS, through the planned open consultations later this year. > > We acknowledge the achievements of the Commission on Science and Technology > for Development working group on IGF reform and express our desire and > commitment to work closely with it, as well as the Association for > Progressive Communications and other Civil Society initiatives. > > We continue to support the regional IGF meetings, with closer focus that > will address problems at every level, spreading the impact of the IGF around > the world in physical meetings and including the themes discussed > regionally. > > We support the unique model of dynamically engaged hubs and remote > participation as innovative developments of the IGF. Local meetings and > remote participation have increased inclusion to the point where this IGF > has individual remote participants engaged online around the world and with > an unprecedented 33 local hubs registered. > > We reiterate the importance of capacity development to improve inclusion, to > allow us each to build the resources and knowledge to reach our goals. > > Finally, we invite all of you to join Civil Society in addressing specific > IG issues such as Net Neutrality vis a vis wireless Internet. We invite > progressive Civil Society and other players to make themselves clearly heard > working towards a user-centric… a people-centric Internet. We must continue > the IGF model of providing a new set of means and processes for openness and > participation that will become the default global standard. > > > -- > > 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 > --                         >> 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Sep 15 10:01:14 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:01:14 +0300 Subject: [governance] Call for nominations for IGC coordinator Message-ID: As noted in the minutes of our IGC meeting on Monday, I am soon going to open an election process for an IGC coordinator to replace Ginger, whose term is due to expire. Please send your nominations to the list or to me (after the nominee has agreed), by Wednesday 22 September. The main role of the coordinators is to facilitate the discussions and enable the members of the caucus to reach consensus whenever possible. In cases where the IGC cannot reach full consensus, the two coordinators together can make a decision on rough consensus subject to an appeal. The coordinators are also responsible for defining and assigning any other tasks that need to be carried out in support of the caucus such as list management, web site management or support of other tools. These decisions will require the advice of the membership and can be appealed to the appeals team. Separately, we also need someone to volunteer to coordinate the selection of a new Appeals Team - this is not a task that the coordinators are permitted to handle. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 vanda at uol.com.br Wed Sep 15 10:30:55 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:30:55 -0300 Subject: [governance] Call for nominations for IGC coordinator In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004a01cb54e2$9ec8c150$dc5a43f0$@com.br> Hi Jeremy, Ginger cannot be reelected or she is also in this dispute? Thanks to enlighten me. All the best Vanda Scartezini Alac liaison to the ICANN Board Brazil Skype: vanda(dot)scartezini From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:01 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Call for nominations for IGC coordinator As noted in the minutes of our IGC meeting on Monday, I am soon going to open an election process for an IGC coordinator to replace Ginger, whose term is due to expire. Please send your nominations to the list or to me (after the nominee has agreed), by Wednesday 22 September. The main role of the coordinators is to facilitate the discussions and enable the members of the caucus to reach consensus whenever possible. In cases where the IGC cannot reach full consensus, the two coordinators together can make a decision on rough consensus subject to an appeal. The coordinators are also responsible for defining and assigning any other tasks that need to be carried out in support of the caucus such as list management, web site management or support of other tools. These decisions will require the advice of the membership and can be appealed to the appeals team. Separately, we also need someone to volunteer to coordinate the selection of a new Appeals Team - this is not a task that the coordinators are permitted to handle. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Sep 15 10:54:51 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:24:51 -0430 Subject: [governance] Call for nominations for IGC coordinator In-Reply-To: <004a01cb54e2$9ec8c150$dc5a43f0$@com.br> References: <004a01cb54e2$9ec8c150$dc5a43f0$@com.br> Message-ID: <4C90DE3B.1030107@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 Wed Sep 15 11:05:11 2010 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:05:11 +0300 Subject: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: <4C90DE3B.1030107@paque.net> References: <004a01cb54e2$9ec8c150$dc5a43f0$@com.br> <4C90DE3B.1030107@paque.net> Message-ID: <001b01cb54e7$6672cfd0$33586f70$@net> I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the support for the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing session or in regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if IGF sends a strong message out on this. Best wishes and regards Shahzad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Sep 15 11:29:00 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:29:00 +0300 Subject: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: <001b01cb54e7$6672cfd0$33586f70$@net> References: <004a01cb54e2$9ec8c150$dc5a43f0$@com.br> <4C90DE3B.1030107@paque.net> <001b01cb54e7$6672cfd0$33586f70$@net> Message-ID: Don't we already have one (or equivalent) ? http://www.isoc.org/awards/ -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the support for the > Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing session or in regular > interventions in the plenary. It will be good if IGF sends a strong message > out on this. > > > > Best wishes and regards > > > > Shahzad > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From krum.jonev at dir.bg Wed Sep 15 15:09:38 2010 From: krum.jonev at dir.bg (krum.jonev at dir.bg) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:09:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06ECB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <$6tuV$kKhnAMFAvP@perry.co.uk> <96587A11-760F-4D95-A061-2EB1A0D105E1@acm.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20100530172340.05bb44c8@jefsey.com> <14E786AF-D5E7-41A1-8D1F-A76DDAEC1A6A@acm.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20100530230827.05bb48a0@jefsey.com> <585984.22126.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4C331112.8010300@digsys.bg> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06ECB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Sorry for digging this thread up, but there is an update on the topic: http://domainincite.com/bulgaria-to-appeal-icann-rejection/ "The Bulgarian government will appeal ICANN’s rejection of .бг, its proposed Cyrillic-script version of the .bg country-code top-level domain, according to reports. “We have reasons to hope that our proposal may be accepted by the end of next year,” Deputy Transport Minister Parvan Rusinov said, according to Novinite.com. ICANN rejected the string earlier this year due to its confusing similarity to Brazil’s ccTLD, .br. The Bulgarian government conducted a online poll, offering its citizens the choice of a few lengthier alternatives, but .бг still came back the winner. In today’s reports, Rusinov is quoted saying that the government could either file a modified application, or wait for the launch of an appeals procedure in 2011. It does not appear that the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process currently allows appeals, so I can only assume that such a mechanism is under consideration as part of the upcoming process review. It has been rumored. ICANN doesn’t talk about IDN fast track applications until they are approved, but Bulgaria’s government has been happily chatting to the local press for months. Technology minister Alexander Tsvetkov was quoted back in June saying that the country would ask ICANN to reconsider its decision. If he meant a Reconsideration Request, that never happened." Regards, Krum On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:09:56 +0200 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Thanks > > can you specify what the four alternative proposals are? > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: krum.jonev at dir.bg [mailto:krum.jonev at dir.bg] > Gesendet: Mi 21.07.2010 11:54 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track > > > > Hi, > > Just to keep you updated on this topic. > > Today the Bulgarian Ministry of Transport, IT and Communications > launched a poll to collect public opinions on the topic of the > Bulgarian IDN ccTLD. > > The proposed answers are: > > - "I don`t want anything except .??" > - "I don`t want an IDN ccTLD" > - Also are added four new proposals for the string. > > Regards > Krum > > On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 14:18:42 +0300 > Daniel Kalchev wrote: >> Eric, >> >> Grad to see there are still people who both see the issues at hand >>and are prepared to openly discuss it. >> >> Daniel >> >> On 04.07.10 19:15, Eric Dierker wrote: >>> I only know from my experience with ICANN but I have a suggestion >>>that is generally not spoken but is as clear as a bell. The process >>>that is open and transparent at ICANN almost always leaves an >>>observer or participant scratching their head at the outcome. It is >>>most closely understood as a Highschool social click. Science and >>>logic and process cannot really offer any sense to it. It is more >>>like "who" and "what" and "where" is "/in"/. >>> >>> The mere and startling fact that you conclude by saying in essence >>>"what the hell *is* the next step?". Really exemplifies my point. >>>And sadly the answer is just as plain as the huge schnouze on my >>>face. Your next step is to */get popular/. Get yourself invited to >>>parties, panels and write some stuff on some lists praising some >>>inglorious staffer. Staff recommends only that which the staff feels >>>is popular and boards-counsels WGs and TFs only support that which is >>>popular. * >>> * >>> * >>> *Taboos: 1. Any heated debate. 2. Any reference to misconduct. 3. >>>Demanding anything at all. 4. Cohorting with folks deemed unwashed >>>and not in the click.* >>> * >>> * >>> *Don't get me wrong the party line Avri put forth here is a >>>technical issue regarding confusion -- so they say these words but -- >>>as you can see that is not at all the issue -- the technical issues >>>are either disregarded or manufactured to meet the above criteria.* >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *From:* "krum.jonev at dir.bg" >>> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; jefsey >>> *Sent:* Sat, June 26, 2010 10:16:05 AM >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> On an interview today, the IT minister announced that Bulgaria will >>>send a reconsideration request for the .?? string. >>> >>> Original source : >>>http://dariknews.bg/view_article.php?article_id=551142 (in Bulgarian) >>> >>> - >>> Who will be the domain of Bulgaria in Cyrillic alphabet, after it >>>emerged that looked like BR (Brazil) and will not happen? >>> >>> Minister: Yes, we received a refusal for the BG domain. I personally >>>believe that this domain is the best for Bulgaria and the same is >>>considered perhaps by the majority of IT industry. Therefore, we will >>>make a new request. Will ask for reconsideration. >>> >>> And do not give up. >>> >>> Minister: No, do not give up the registration of the domain. I think >>>he has the greatest effect. Other abbreviations in Cyrillic in my >>>opinion will not be so ... >>> >>> BU, BYA, BGR ... >>> >>> Minister: No, these are not so typical for Bulgaria and will not be >>>so popular. >>> >>> Even the whole "Bulgaria". >>> >>> Minister: I think that will not be as popular as both letters ?? >>>(BG) >>> >>> How this will happen - the change of this refusal? >>> >>> Minister: Well, to change that refusal is a new procedure in an >>>international organization that approves the registration of those >>>domains. We got the first refusal, but that does not mean that with >>>the second procedure we will also get a refusal - its possible to >>>obtain approval. >>> >>> But what really count, because the simple logic is that true when >>>you see BR in Brazil, right, it looks like BG of the Bulgarians. And >>>because the Brazilians are the first - they give up? >>> >>> Minister: No, they will not quit, of course, we still rely on a >>>deeper examination of the problem and hopefully to be approved this >>>abbreviation because it is most typical for Bulgaria and I think it >>>will benefit the most , it introduce the Cyrillic alphabet. >>> >>> - >>> >>> However, I don`t have an idea what is this "second"procedure - maybe >>>the extended review? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Krum >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 15 18:20:36 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 23:20:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: <001b01cb54e7$6672cfd0$33586f70$@net> References: <004a01cb54e2$9ec8c150$dc5a43f0$@com.br> <4C90DE3B.1030107@paque.net> <001b01cb54e7$6672cfd0$33586f70$@net> Message-ID: <4C9146B4.8030100@wzb.eu> I think this is a real rubbish idea and I am very much against sending any message to that effect. jeanette On 15.09.2010 16:05, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the support for > the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing session or in > regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if IGF sends a > strong message out on this. > > Best wishes and regards > > Shahzad > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Sep 15 18:38:38 2010 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:38:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: <001b01cb54e7$6672cfd0$33586f70$@net> References: <004a01cb54e2$9ec8c150$dc5a43f0$@com.br> <4C90DE3B.1030107@paque.net> <001b01cb54e7$6672cfd0$33586f70$@net> Message-ID: Sorry - I haven't seen this idea before. What would this entail? Like the prize for Economics? I can't see how focusing on this would be really beneficial, compared to other issues, but am willing to hear more. Jacqueline On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the support for > the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing session or in regular > interventions in the plenary. It will be good if IGF sends a strong message > out on this. > > > > Best wishes and regards > > > > Shahzad > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > 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 Wed Sep 15 18:59:59 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:59:59 -0700 Subject: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think the idea is that the TBL be given the Nobel (Peace) Prize on behalf of "the Internet" http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/03/internet-in-running-for-nobel-peace-p rize-bbc/ My understanding is that part of the process could involve popular nominations... which I would understand is what Shahzad is proposing for CS. Whether it is a good idea or not is another question. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Jacqueline Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 3:39 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Shahzad Ahmad Subject: Re: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet Sorry - I haven't seen this idea before. What would this entail? Like the prize for Economics? I can't see how focusing on this would be really beneficial, compared to other issues, but am willing to hear more. Jacqueline On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the support for the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing session or in regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if IGF sends a strong message out on this. Best wishes and regards Shahzad ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Sep 16 00:53:13 2010 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:53:13 +0900 Subject: [governance] how to do statement at Taking stock of Internet governance session Message-ID: Hi everyone, I would like to know for speaking at the* *Taking stock of Internet governance and the way forward session to make statement, there is need to send it before the session? Regards Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Sep 16 01:18:11 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 06:18:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] Open consultations on the CSTD IGF Working Group Message-ID: <4C91A893.6090808@wzb.eu> fyi -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [igf_members] Open consultations on the CSTD IGF Working Group Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:04:34 +0200 From: Markus KUMMER To: IGF Members Dear colleagues, The CSTD Vice Chair and MAG Member Frederic Riehl has asked me to kindly remind you that he will hold an open consultation today on the proposed CSTD Working Group that is to discuss working methods and functioning of the IGF, should the mandate be renewed. The consultation will take place in the main session hall at 1330. Frederic would also be grateful if you could pass on the information within your respective stakeholder groups. Best regards Markus ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Attached Message Part URL: From avri at psg.com Thu Sep 16 01:19:02 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:19:02 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [] Open consultations on the CSTD IGF Working Group References: Message-ID: <839F0A51-A0C9-4EDA-9455-9995F326075B@psg.com> Begin forwarded message: > From: Markus KUMMER > Subject: [igf_members] Open consultations on the CSTD IGF Working Group > > Dear colleagues, > > The CSTD Vice Chair and MAG Member Frederic Riehl has asked me to kindly remind you that he will hold an open consultation today on the proposed CSTD Working Group that is to discuss working methods and functioning of the IGF, should the mandate be renewed. > > The consultation will take place in the main session hall at 1330. > > Frederic would also be grateful if you could pass on the information within your respective stakeholder groups. > > Best regards > Markus > > > _______________________________________________ > igf_members mailing list > igf_members at intgovforum.org > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igf_members_intgovforum.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 tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk Thu Sep 16 01:56:53 2010 From: tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk (Tim Davies) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:56:53 +0300 Subject: [governance] Social Reporting from IGF Message-ID: Hello all, I thought members of the list may be interested in the blog posts and reflections written up so far by the 'social reporting' team, both here in Vilnius and remote participants to IGF. You can browse them all at: http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profiles/blog/list but I've tried to summarise them to help you find posts of interest at a glance here: * http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profiles/blogs/social-reporting-so-far * The reporting team are reading comments on their posts, so if after reading any of these posts you have questions you think should be followed up more, you can post these as comments and hopefully the social reporters responsible will be able to explore those questions more at the event. (You can also follow tweets and auto-aggregated social media from sessions here: http://igf2010.diplointernetgovernance.org/ which provides direct links to the webcast and WebEx for each session). Regards Tim -- 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Sep 16 03:30:20 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 04:30:20 -0300 Subject: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: <4C9146B4.8030100@wzb.eu> References: <004a01cb54e2$9ec8c150$dc5a43f0$@com.br> <4C90DE3B.1030107@paque.net> <001b01cb54e7$6672cfd0$33586f70$@net> <4C9146B4.8030100@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4C91C78C.5000606@cafonso.ca> I of course agree with Jean, although perhaps I would not phrase it as bluntly :) --c.a. On 09/15/2010 07:20 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > I think this is a real rubbish idea and I am very much against sending > any message to that effect. > jeanette > > On 15.09.2010 16:05, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >> I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the support for >> the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing session or in >> regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if IGF sends a >> strong message out on this. >> >> Best wishes and regards >> >> Shahzad >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it Thu Sep 16 03:56:19 2010 From: f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it (Fiorello Cortiana) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:56:19 +0200 Subject: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: <4C91C78C.5000606@cafonso.ca> References: <004a01cb54e2$9ec8c150$dc5a43f0$@com.br> <4C90DE3B.1030107@paque.net> <001b01cb54e7$6672cfd0$33586f70$@net> <4C9146B4.8030100@wzb.eu> <4C91C78C.5000606@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11F6AAF6@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> We have to be pragmatic, the Nobel Prize to the net could be useful to recognize it as a commons, the wider public space in the human history, not a new infrastructure after telegraph, telephon, radio, television and PC. This is why we need an extension of the rights in a new way: multilevel and multistakeholder. I know what I say under Berlusconi's Government the freedom of expression on the net is in peril. With Stefano Rodotà and many other we gathered 400.000 signatures under an appeal against an awful proposal of law and this time we won. Ready to the next one :) Fiorello -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 9.30 A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann Cc: Shahzad Ahmad Oggetto: Re: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet I of course agree with Jean, although perhaps I would not phrase it as bluntly :) --c.a. On 09/15/2010 07:20 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > I think this is a real rubbish idea and I am very much against sending > any message to that effect. > jeanette > > On 15.09.2010 16:05, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >> I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the support >> for the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing session or >> in regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if IGF sends >> a strong message out on this. >> >> Best wishes and regards >> >> Shahzad >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Sep 16 04:12:23 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 05:12:23 -0300 Subject: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11F6AAF6@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> References: <004a01cb54e2$9ec8c150$dc5a43f0$@com.br> <4C90DE3B.1030107@paque.net> <001b01cb54e7$6672cfd0$33586f70$@net> <4C9146B4.8030100@wzb.eu> <4C91C78C.5000606@cafonso.ca> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11F6AAF6@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> Message-ID: <4C91D167.2050700@cafonso.ca> And it will be delivered to ... whom? Vint? Pouzin? The author of the idea? ICANN? Do we really have to lose time discussing this? --c.a. On 09/16/2010 04:56 AM, Fiorello Cortiana wrote: > > We have to be pragmatic, the Nobel Prize to the net could be useful to > recognize it as a commons, the wider public space in the human history, not > a new infrastructure after telegraph, telephon, radio, television and PC. This is why we need an extension of the rights in > a new way: multilevel and multistakeholder. I know what I say under > Berlusconi's Government the freedom of expression on the net is in peril. > With Stefano Rodotà and many other we gathered 400.000 signatures under an > appeal against an awful proposal of law and this time we won. Ready to the next one :) > > Fiorello > > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] > Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 9.30 > A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > Cc: Shahzad Ahmad > Oggetto: Re: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet > > I of course agree with Jean, although perhaps I would not phrase it as bluntly :) > > --c.a. > > On 09/15/2010 07:20 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> I think this is a real rubbish idea and I am very much against sending >> any message to that effect. >> jeanette >> >> On 15.09.2010 16:05, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>> I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the support >>> for the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing session or >>> in regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if IGF sends >>> a strong message out on this. >>> >>> Best wishes and regards >>> >>> Shahzad >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 16 04:17:12 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:47:12 +0530 Subject: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11F6AAF6@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> References: <004a01cb54e2$9ec8c150$dc5a43f0$@com.br> <4C90DE3B.1030107@paque.net> <001b01cb54e7$6672cfd0$33586f70$@net> <4C9146B4.8030100@wzb.eu> <4C91C78C.5000606@cafonso.ca> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11F6AAF6@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> Message-ID: <4C91D288.1030408@itforchange.net> I am sorry, but I hate to give human status to any artifact.... even the Internet... And Nobel prize is for human beings, maybe the best among them or whatever..... Next we may hear is that 'the Internet has rights'..... not at all going in good directions if you ask me :) (At a recent conf i was given this T shirt - dont think what the Internet can do you you - think what you can do to the Internet -- this kind of expressions almost scare me, and make me feel belittled as a human being in front of a 'system'... Well if we are insistent on going down that path then lets give noble prize to the 'system' instead, the all powerful one) parmindr On Thursday 16 September 2010 01:26 PM, Fiorello Cortiana wrote: > We have to be pragmatic, the Nobel Prize to the net could be useful to > recognize it as a commons, the wider public space in the human history, not > a new infrastructure after telegraph, telephon, radio, television and PC. This is why we need an extension of the rights in > a new way: multilevel and multistakeholder. I know what I say under > Berlusconi's Government the freedom of expression on the net is in peril. > With Stefano Rodotà and many other we gathered 400.000 signatures under an > appeal against an awful proposal of law and this time we won. Ready to the next one :) > > Fiorello > > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] > Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 9.30 > A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > Cc: Shahzad Ahmad > Oggetto: Re: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet > > I of course agree with Jean, although perhaps I would not phrase it as bluntly :) > > --c.a. > > On 09/15/2010 07:20 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> I think this is a real rubbish idea and I am very much against sending >> any message to that effect. >> jeanette >> >> On 15.09.2010 16:05, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >> >>> I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the support >>> for the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing session or >>> in regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if IGF sends >>> a strong message out on this. >>> >>> Best wishes and regards >>> >>> Shahzad >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > 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 f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it Thu Sep 16 04:27:55 2010 From: f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it (Fiorello Cortiana) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:27:55 +0200 Subject: R: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: <4C91D288.1030408@itforchange.net> References: <004a01cb54e2$9ec8c150$dc5a43f0$@com.br> <4C90DE3B.1030107@paque.net> <001b01cb54e7$6672cfd0$33586f70$@net> <4C9146B4.8030100@wzb.eu> <4C91C78C.5000606@cafonso.ca> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11F6AAF6@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> <4C91D288.1030408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11F6AAFF@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> Internet is a cognitive collective enterprise don't be distracted by the infrastructure Fiorello ________________________________ Da: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 10.17 A: governance at lists.cpsr.org Oggetto: Re: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet I am sorry, but I hate to give human status to any artifact.... even the Internet... And Nobel prize is for human beings, maybe the best among them or whatever..... Next we may hear is that 'the Internet has rights'..... not at all going in good directions if you ask me :) (At a recent conf i was given this T shirt - dont think what the Internet can do you you - think what you can do to the Internet -- this kind of expressions almost scare me, and make me feel belittled as a human being in front of a 'system'... Well if we are insistent on going down that path then lets give noble prize to the 'system' instead, the all powerful one) parmindr On Thursday 16 September 2010 01:26 PM, Fiorello Cortiana wrote: We have to be pragmatic, the Nobel Prize to the net could be useful to recognize it as a commons, the wider public space in the human history, not a new infrastructure after telegraph, telephon, radio, television and PC. This is why we need an extension of the rights in a new way: multilevel and multistakeholder. I know what I say under Berlusconi's Government the freedom of expression on the net is in peril. With Stefano Rodotà and many other we gathered 400.000 signatures under an appeal against an awful proposal of law and this time we won. Ready to the next one :) Fiorello -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 9.30 A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann Cc: Shahzad Ahmad Oggetto: Re: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet I of course agree with Jean, although perhaps I would not phrase it as bluntly :) --c.a. On 09/15/2010 07:20 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: I think this is a real rubbish idea and I am very much against sending any message to that effect. jeanette On 15.09.2010 16:05, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the support for the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing session or in regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if IGF sends a strong message out on this. Best wishes and regards Shahzad ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: 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 f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it Thu Sep 16 04:32:42 2010 From: f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it (Fiorello Cortiana) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:32:42 +0200 Subject: R: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: <4C91D167.2050700@cafonso.ca> References: <004a01cb54e2$9ec8c150$dc5a43f0$@com.br> <4C90DE3B.1030107@paque.net> <001b01cb54e7$6672cfd0$33586f70$@net> <4C9146B4.8030100@wzb.eu> <4C91C78C.5000606@cafonso.ca> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11F6AAF6@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> <4C91D167.2050700@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11F6AB00@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> I agree with you, let WIRED do its job Fiorello -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 10.12 A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fiorello Cortiana Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; Shahzad Ahmad Oggetto: Re: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet And it will be delivered to ... whom? Vint? Pouzin? The author of the idea? ICANN? Do we really have to lose time discussing this? --c.a. On 09/16/2010 04:56 AM, Fiorello Cortiana wrote: > > We have to be pragmatic, the Nobel Prize to the net could be useful to > recognize it as a commons, the wider public space in the human > history, not a new infrastructure after telegraph, telephon, radio, > television and PC. This is why we need an extension of the rights in a > new way: multilevel and multistakeholder. I know what I say under Berlusconi's Government the freedom of expression on the net is in peril. > With Stefano Rodotà and many other we gathered 400.000 signatures > under an appeal against an awful proposal of law and this time we won. > Ready to the next one :) > > Fiorello > > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] > Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 9.30 > A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > Cc: Shahzad Ahmad > Oggetto: Re: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet > > I of course agree with Jean, although perhaps I would not phrase it as > bluntly :) > > --c.a. > > On 09/15/2010 07:20 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> I think this is a real rubbish idea and I am very much against >> sending any message to that effect. >> jeanette >> >> On 15.09.2010 16:05, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>> I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the support >>> for the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing session >>> or in regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if IGF >>> sends a strong message out on this. >>> >>> Best wishes and regards >>> >>> Shahzad >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Thu Sep 16 04:49:49 2010 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:49:49 +0200 Subject: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: <4C91D288.1030408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: May I endorse the thoughts of Parminder, I do not see what can really be gained by the nobel prize for the internet, different from giving it to UNHCR, AI etc to point out their good work as a model for humanity and support their concerns. Wolfgang Benedek Am 16.09.10 10:17 schrieb "parminder" unter : I am sorry, but I hate to give human status to any artifact.... even the Internet... And Nobel prize is for human beings, maybe the best among them or whatever..... Next we may hear is that 'the Internet has rights'..... not at all going in good directions if you ask me :) (At a recent conf i was given this T shirt - dont think what the Internet can do you you - think what you can do to the Internet -- this kind of expressions almost scare me, and make me feel belittled as a human being in front of a 'system'... Well if we are insistent on going down that path then lets give noble prize to the 'system' instead, the all powerful one) parmindr On Thursday 16 September 2010 01:26 PM, Fiorello Cortiana wrote: We have to be pragmatic, the Nobel Prize to the net could be useful to recognize it as a commons, the wider public space in the human history, not a new infrastructure after telegraph, telephon, radio, television and PC. This is why we need an extension of the rights in a new way: multilevel and multistakeholder. I know what I say under Berlusconi's Government the freedom of expression on the net is in peril. With Stefano Rodotà and many other we gathered 400.000 signatures under an appeal against an awful proposal of law and this time we won. Ready to the next one :) Fiorello -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 9.30 A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann Cc: Shahzad Ahmad Oggetto: Re: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet I of course agree with Jean, although perhaps I would not phrase it as bluntly :) --c.a. On 09/15/2010 07:20 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: I think this is a real rubbish idea and I am very much against sending any message to that effect. jeanette On 15.09.2010 16:05, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the support for the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing session or in regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if IGF sends a strong message out on this. Best wishes and regards Shahzad ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Sep 16 05:09:31 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:39:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values Today Message-ID: Hello Fellow participants of the Internet Governance Caucus are invited to take take (an active) part in the first formative meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values at Room 9, 4 30 pm today http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/dynamiccoalitions/90-dc-meetings-2009/481-dynamic-coalition-on-core-internet-values For any further information, please connect to Sebastien Bachollet (Isoc France, Euralo) at Vilnius or to Priyanthi Daluwatte or reply to this mail off-list. Thank You. 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 shahzad at bytesforall.net Thu Sep 16 05:09:52 2010 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:09:52 +0300 Subject: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: References: <4C91D288.1030408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <001b01cb557e$ed8e0920$c8aa1b60$@net> May be in the same way as it was given to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/ The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change" Best S From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:50 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Subject: Re: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet May I endorse the thoughts of Parminder, I do not see what can really be gained by the nobel prize for the internet, different from giving it to UNHCR, AI etc to point out their good work as a model for humanity and support their concerns. Wolfgang Benedek Am 16.09.10 10:17 schrieb "parminder" unter : I am sorry, but I hate to give human status to any artifact.... even the Internet... And Nobel prize is for human beings, maybe the best among them or whatever..... Next we may hear is that 'the Internet has rights'..... not at all going in good directions if you ask me :) (At a recent conf i was given this T shirt - dont think what the Internet can do you you - think what you can do to the Internet -- this kind of expressions almost scare me, and make me feel belittled as a human being in front of a 'system'... Well if we are insistent on going down that path then lets give noble prize to the 'system' instead, the all powerful one) parmindr On Thursday 16 September 2010 01:26 PM, Fiorello Cortiana wrote: We have to be pragmatic, the Nobel Prize to the net could be useful to recognize it as a commons, the wider public space in the human history, not a new infrastructure after telegraph, telephon, radio, television and PC. This is why we need an extension of the rights in a new way: multilevel and multistakeholder. I know what I say under Berlusconi's Government the freedom of expression on the net is in peril. With Stefano Rodotà and many other we gathered 400.000 signatures under an appeal against an awful proposal of law and this time we won. Ready to the next one :) Fiorello -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 9.30 A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann Cc: Shahzad Ahmad Oggetto: Re: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet I of course agree with Jean, although perhaps I would not phrase it as bluntly :) --c.a. On 09/15/2010 07:20 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: I think this is a real rubbish idea and I am very much against sending any message to that effect. jeanette On 15.09.2010 16:05, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the support for the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing session or in regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if IGF sends a strong message out on this. Best wishes and regards Shahzad ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: 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 Dixie at global-partners.co.uk Thu Sep 16 05:21:26 2010 From: Dixie at global-partners.co.uk (Dixie Hawtin) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:21:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coalition on Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Internet Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C6F165188@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> And right before the Core Internet Values DC meeting, and in the very same room (Room 9), is the meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media on the Internet from 14:14 until 16:15. It is essentially a soapbox so come along with your issues and initiatives to discuss! If you began a discussion on a relevant issue at the IGF but didn't have the opportunity to take it as far as you like - this is the place to bring it. There are already a number of interesting issues on the table so come along and get involved! Best wishes, Dixie ________________________________ From: Sivasubramanian M [isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: 16 September 2010 10:09 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values Today Hello Fellow participants of the Internet Governance Caucus are invited to take take (an active) part in the first formative meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values at Room 9, 4 30 pm today http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/dynamiccoalitions/90-dc-meetings-2009/481-dynamic-coalition-on-core-internet-values For any further information, please connect to Sebastien Bachollet (Isoc France, Euralo) at Vilnius or to Priyanthi Daluwatte or reply to this mail off-list. Thank You. 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 ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Sep 16 05:24:18 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 06:24:18 -0300 Subject: R: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11F6AAFF@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> References: <004a01cb54e2$9ec8c150$dc5a43f0$@com.br> <4C90DE3B.1030107@paque.net> <001b01cb54e7$6672cfd0$33586f70$@net> <4C9146B4.8030100@wzb.eu> <4C91C78C.5000606@cafonso.ca> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11F6AAF6@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> <4C91D288.1030408@itforchange.net> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11F6AAFF@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> Message-ID: <4C91E242.6070502@cafonso.ca> Wow, now I am even more scared than Parminder! --c.a. On 09/16/2010 05:27 AM, Fiorello Cortiana wrote: > Internet is a cognitive collective enterprise don't be distracted by the infrastructure > > Fiorello > > ________________________________ > > Da: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 10.17 > A: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Oggetto: Re: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet > > > I am sorry, but I hate to give human status to any artifact.... even the Internet... And Nobel prize is for human beings, maybe the best among them or whatever..... Next we may hear is that 'the Internet has rights'..... not at all going in good directions if you ask me :) > > (At a recent conf i was given this T shirt - dont think what the Internet can do you you - think what you can do to the Internet -- this kind of expressions almost scare me, and make me feel belittled as a human being in front of a 'system'... Well if we are insistent on going down that path then lets give noble prize to the 'system' instead, the all powerful one) > > parmindr > > On Thursday 16 September 2010 01:26 PM, Fiorello Cortiana wrote: > > We have to be pragmatic, the Nobel Prize to the net could be useful to > recognize it as a commons, the wider public space in the human history, not > a new infrastructure after telegraph, telephon, radio, television and PC. This is why we need an extension of the rights in > a new way: multilevel and multistakeholder. I know what I say under > Berlusconi's Government the freedom of expression on the net is in peril. > With Stefano Rodotà and many other we gathered 400.000 signatures under an > appeal against an awful proposal of law and this time we won. Ready to the next one :) > > Fiorello > > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] > Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 9.30 > A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > Cc: Shahzad Ahmad > Oggetto: Re: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet > > I of course agree with Jean, although perhaps I would not phrase it as bluntly :) > > --c.a. > > On 09/15/2010 07:20 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > I think this is a real rubbish idea and I am very much against sending > any message to that effect. > jeanette > > On 15.09.2010 16:05, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > > > I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the support > for the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing session or > in regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if IGF sends > a strong message out on this. > > Best wishes and regards > > Shahzad > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rui.veras at gmail.com Thu Sep 16 05:26:03 2010 From: rui.veras at gmail.com (Rui Veras) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:26:03 +0200 Subject: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: <001b01cb557e$ed8e0920$c8aa1b60$@net> References: <4C91D288.1030408@itforchange.net> <001b01cb557e$ed8e0920$c8aa1b60$@net> Message-ID: Dear All, Please check the link: http://www.internetforpeace.it/manifesto.cfm Regards, Rui Veras On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > May be in the same way as it was given to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel > on Climate Change… > > > > http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/ > > > > The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel > on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. *"for their > efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate > change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to > counteract such change"* > > > > Best > > S > > > > *From:* Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) [mailto: > wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:50 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > *Subject:* Re: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet > > > > May I endorse the thoughts of Parminder, I do not see what can really be > gained by the nobel prize for the internet, different from giving it to > UNHCR, AI etc to point out their good work as a model for humanity and > support their concerns. > > Wolfgang Benedek > > > Am 16.09.10 10:17 schrieb "parminder" unter : > > I am sorry, but I hate to give human status to any artifact.... even the > Internet... And Nobel prize is for human beings, maybe the best among them > or whatever..... Next we may hear is that 'the Internet has rights'..... not > at all going in good directions if you ask me :) > > (At a recent conf i was given this T shirt - dont think what the Internet > can do you you - think what you can do to the Internet -- this kind of > expressions almost scare me, and make me feel belittled as a human being in > front of a 'system'... Well if we are insistent on going down that path then > lets give noble prize to the 'system' instead, the all powerful one) > > parmindr > > On Thursday 16 September 2010 01:26 PM, Fiorello Cortiana wrote: > > > > We have to be pragmatic, the Nobel Prize to the net could be useful to > recognize it as a commons, the wider public space in the human history, not > > a new infrastructure after telegraph, telephon, radio, television and PC. > This is why we need an extension of the rights in > a new way: multilevel and multistakeholder. I know what I say under > Berlusconi's Government the freedom of expression on the net is in peril. > With Stefano Rodotà and many other we gathered 400.000 signatures under an > appeal against an awful proposal of law and this time we won. Ready to the > next one :) > > Fiorello > > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca ] > Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 9.30 > A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > Cc: Shahzad Ahmad > Oggetto: Re: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet > > I of course agree with Jean, although perhaps I would not phrase it as > bluntly :) > > --c.a. > > On 09/15/2010 07:20 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > > I think this is a real rubbish idea and I am very much against sending > any message to that effect. > jeanette > > On 15.09.2010 16:05, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > > > > > I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the support > for the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing session or > in regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if IGF sends > a strong message out on this. > > Best wishes and regards > > Shahzad > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- *Rui Sequeira Veras* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Sep 16 05:25:36 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 06:25:36 -0300 Subject: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: <001b01cb557e$ed8e0920$c8aa1b60$@net> References: <4C91D288.1030408@itforchange.net> <001b01cb557e$ed8e0920$c8aa1b60$@net> Message-ID: <4C91E290.7030004@cafonso.ca> The confusion thickens... --c.a. On 09/16/2010 06:09 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > May be in the same way as it was given to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on > Climate Change… > > > > http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/ > > > > The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on > Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. "for their efforts to > build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, > and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract > such change" > > > > Best > > S > > > > From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) > [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:50 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > Subject: Re: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet > > > > May I endorse the thoughts of Parminder, I do not see what can really be > gained by the nobel prize for the internet, different from giving it to > UNHCR, AI etc to point out their good work as a model for humanity and > support their concerns. > > Wolfgang Benedek > > > Am 16.09.10 10:17 schrieb "parminder" unter: > > I am sorry, but I hate to give human status to any artifact.... even the > Internet... And Nobel prize is for human beings, maybe the best among them > or whatever..... Next we may hear is that 'the Internet has rights'..... not > at all going in good directions if you ask me :) > > (At a recent conf i was given this T shirt - dont think what the Internet > can do you you - think what you can do to the Internet -- this kind of > expressions almost scare me, and make me feel belittled as a human being in > front of a 'system'... Well if we are insistent on going down that path then > lets give noble prize to the 'system' instead, the all powerful one) > > parmindr > > On Thursday 16 September 2010 01:26 PM, Fiorello Cortiana wrote: > > > > We have to be pragmatic, the Nobel Prize to the net could be useful to > recognize it as a commons, the wider public space in the human history, not > a new infrastructure after telegraph, telephon, radio, television and PC. > This is why we need an extension of the rights in > a new way: multilevel and multistakeholder. I know what I say under > Berlusconi's Government the freedom of expression on the net is in peril. > With Stefano Rodotà and many other we gathered 400.000 signatures under an > appeal against an awful proposal of law and this time we won. Ready to the > next one :) > > Fiorello > > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] > Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 9.30 > A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > Cc: Shahzad Ahmad > Oggetto: Re: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet > > I of course agree with Jean, although perhaps I would not phrase it as > bluntly :) > > --c.a. > > On 09/15/2010 07:20 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > > I think this is a real rubbish idea and I am very much against sending > any message to that effect. > jeanette > > On 15.09.2010 16:05, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > > > > > I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the support > for the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing session or > in regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if IGF sends > a strong message out on this. > > Best wishes and regards > > Shahzad > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 05:29:12 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 02:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet Message-ID: <11170.61060.qm@web55203.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Hi all I saw it very differently. I saw the Internet as anothe category. Such as literature and science. Etc. In this context the Nobel prize would still be given to an individual. For their exceptional contributions in the field. In a skeptical note , when I look at some tecie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Sep 16 05:41:39 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:41:39 +0300 Subject: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: <11170.61060.qm@web55203.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <11170.61060.qm@web55203.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56BFA3EF-B7F0-4293-8F96-B13464904EF1@acm.org> hi, I initially read it that way and though that Internet related sciences might be an interesting category. Not sure what the right name for the category would be. then i realized that this is probably not what the original sender meant. so I thought of the Internet in its role of bringing people together and fostering community and making the world much smaller and enabling an access to knowledge that was unthinkable for most of world history. I was not sure that this was enough to merit a Nobel prize yet because there was still so much to do and still so may warts on the Internet that needed to be fixed. but Obama got the prize for peace making before he had done anything, so I figured that maybe the Internet and the multitude of people who invested their lives into building this thing we all depend on (whether we curse it out or bless it), deserved it more than he did at the time. but i was still not convinced. then i saw the messages of this list and got very afraid of having an opinion on the topic. so please forget i said anything. a. On 16 Sep 2010, at 12:29, shaila mistry wrote: > Hi all > I saw it very differently. I saw the Internet as anothe category. Such as literature and science. Etc. In this context the Nobel prize would still be given to an individual. For their exceptional contributions in the field. > > In a skeptical note , when I look at some tecie > > From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) ; > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; parminder ; > Subject: Re: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet > Sent: Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:49:49 AM > > May I endorse the thoughts of Parminder, I do not see what can really be gained by the nobel prize for the internet, different from giving it to UNHCR, AI etc to point out their good work as a model for humanity and support their concerns. > > Wolfgang Benedek > > > Am 16.09.10 10:17 schrieb "parminder" unter : > > I am sorry, but I hate to give human status to any artifact.... even the Internet... And Nobel prize is for human beings, maybe the best among them or whatever..... Next we may hear is that 'the Internet has rights'..... not at all going in good directions if you ask me :) > > (At a recent conf i was given this T shirt - dont think what the Internet can do you you - think what you can do to the Internet -- this kind of expressions almost scare me, and make me feel belittled as a human being in front of a 'system'... Well if we are insistent on going down that path then lets give noble prize to the 'system' instead, the all powerful one) > > parmindr > > On Thursday 16 September 2010 01:26 PM, Fiorello Cortiana wrote: > > > We have to be pragmatic, the Nobel Prize to the net could be useful to > recognize it as a commons, the wider public space in the human history, not > a new infrastructure after telegraph, telephon, radio, television and PC. This is why we need an extension of the rights in > a new way: multilevel and multistakeholder. I know what I say under > Berlusconi's Government the freedom of expression on the net is in peril. > With Stefano Rodotà and many other we gathered 400.000 signatures under an > appeal against an awful proposal of law and this time we won. Ready to the next one :) > > Fiorello > > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] > Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 9.30 > A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > Cc: Shahzad Ahmad > Oggetto: Re: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet > > I of course agree with Jean, although perhaps I would not phrase it as bluntly :) > > --c.a. > > On 09/15/2010 07:20 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > I think this is a real rubbish idea and I am very much against sending > any message to that effect. > jeanette > > On 15.09.2010 16:05, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > > > > I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the support > for the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing session or > in regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if IGF sends > a strong message out on this. > > Best wishes and regards > > Shahzad > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 16 07:05:36 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:05:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on IGF Message-ID: <9B2A160D-A107-4433-88E0-5760DE0A9068@ciroap.org> A open meeting of the CSTD was held at lunchtime today outlining the plans for its working group on the IGF. It plans a WGIG-style multi-stakeholder working group supported by open consultations, to be established at the end of October, with its first meeting on 24 November. I am not sure about (and may have missed) the procedure for selection of this group, and didn't have an opportunity to ask, because I had to leave for a workshop. To fed into the group's deliberations, there will be a questionnaire on improvements to the IGF posted on the CSTD Web site in early October, and will close at the end of the month. It will cover the format of the IGF meetings, the format of its outcomes, and the working methods of the IGF including its MAG, the Secretariat, and outreach to other IG organisations. Obviously, we will contribute to this as a caucus, and may also do so individually. A second physical meeting of the working group will be held in February, and its report will be completed and processed by March, for release and discussion at the CSTD's May meeting, ahead of the (anticipated) sixth Nairobi meeting of the IGF. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 16 07:21:48 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:21:48 +0300 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on IGF In-Reply-To: <9B2A160D-A107-4433-88E0-5760DE0A9068@ciroap.org> References: <9B2A160D-A107-4433-88E0-5760DE0A9068@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I'm watching it on webcast, it is still ongoing in the Plenary room. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > A open meeting of the CSTD was held at lunchtime today outlining the plans > for its working group on the IGF.  It plans a WGIG-style multi-stakeholder > working group supported by open consultations, to be established at the end > of October, with its first meeting on 24 November.  I am not sure about (and > may have missed) the procedure for selection of this group, and didn't have > an opportunity to ask, because I had to leave for a workshop. > To fed into the group's deliberations, there will be a questionnaire on > improvements to the IGF posted on the CSTD Web site in early October, and > will close at the end of the month.  It will cover the format of the IGF > meetings, the format of its outcomes, and the working methods of the IGF > including its MAG, the Secretariat, and outreach to other IG organisations. >  Obviously, we will contribute to this as a caucus, and may also do so > individually. > A second physical meeting of the working group will be held in February, and > its report will be completed and processed by March, for release and > discussion at the CSTD's May meeting, ahead of the (anticipated) sixth > Nairobi meeting of the IGF. > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > CI is 50 > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer > rights around the world. > http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Sep 16 07:26:50 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:26:50 +0100 Subject: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: <56BFA3EF-B7F0-4293-8F96-B13464904EF1@acm.org> References: <11170.61060.qm@web55203.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <56BFA3EF-B7F0-4293-8F96-B13464904EF1@acm.org> Message-ID: <4C91FEFA.7020206@wzb.eu> Hi all, I realize I could have said a word more or two to explain why I don't support the nobel prize suggestion. One of the reasons has been brought up several times. The Internet is not a human being and therefore the wrong entity to receive this prize. The second reason is that the Internet is clearly collective achievement that can hardly be attributed to a single person. It would not be the first time that an individual gets honored for the achievements of a group of people. However, I don't understand why we would support such a practice. I apologize for my blunt statement last night. I probably thought somebody should better say no to this idea before it has a chance to catch on. jeanette On 16.09.2010 10:41, Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > I initially read it that way and though that Internet related sciences might be an interesting category. Not sure what the right name for the category would be. > > then i realized that this is probably not what the original sender meant. > > so I thought of the Internet in its role of bringing people together and fostering community and making the world much smaller and enabling an access to knowledge that was unthinkable for most of world history. I was not sure that this was enough to merit a Nobel prize yet because there was still so much to do and still so may warts on the Internet that needed to be fixed. but Obama got the prize for peace making before he had done anything, so I figured that maybe the Internet and the multitude of people who invested their lives into building this thing we all depend on (whether we curse it out or bless it), deserved it more than he did at the time. but i was still not convinced. > > then i saw the messages of this list and got very afraid of having an opinion on the topic. > > so please forget i said anything. > > a. > > > > On 16 Sep 2010, at 12:29, shaila mistry wrote: > >> Hi all >> I saw it very differently. I saw the Internet as anothe category. Such as literature and science. Etc. In this context the Nobel prize would still be given to an individual. For their exceptional contributions in the field. >> >> In a skeptical note , when I look at some tecie >> >> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at); >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder; >> Subject: Re: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet >> Sent: Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:49:49 AM >> >> May I endorse the thoughts of Parminder, I do not see what can really be gained by the nobel prize for the internet, different from giving it to UNHCR, AI etc to point out their good work as a model for humanity and support their concerns. >> >> Wolfgang Benedek >> >> >> Am 16.09.10 10:17 schrieb "parminder" unter: >> >> I am sorry, but I hate to give human status to any artifact.... even the Internet... And Nobel prize is for human beings, maybe the best among them or whatever..... Next we may hear is that 'the Internet has rights'..... not at all going in good directions if you ask me :) >> >> (At a recent conf i was given this T shirt - dont think what the Internet can do you you - think what you can do to the Internet -- this kind of expressions almost scare me, and make me feel belittled as a human being in front of a 'system'... Well if we are insistent on going down that path then lets give noble prize to the 'system' instead, the all powerful one) >> >> parmindr >> >> On Thursday 16 September 2010 01:26 PM, Fiorello Cortiana wrote: >> >> >> We have to be pragmatic, the Nobel Prize to the net could be useful to >> recognize it as a commons, the wider public space in the human history, not >> a new infrastructure after telegraph, telephon, radio, television and PC. This is why we need an extension of the rights in >> a new way: multilevel and multistakeholder. I know what I say under >> Berlusconi's Government the freedom of expression on the net is in peril. >> With Stefano Rodotà and many other we gathered 400.000 signatures under an >> appeal against an awful proposal of law and this time we won. Ready to the next one :) >> >> Fiorello >> >> -----Messaggio originale----- >> Da: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] >> Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 9.30 >> A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann >> Cc: Shahzad Ahmad >> Oggetto: Re: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet >> >> I of course agree with Jean, although perhaps I would not phrase it as bluntly :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 09/15/2010 07:20 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> >> >> I think this is a real rubbish idea and I am very much against sending >> any message to that effect. >> jeanette >> >> On 15.09.2010 16:05, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >> >> >> >> I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the support >> for the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing session or >> in regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if IGF sends >> a strong message out on this. >> >> Best wishes and regards >> >> Shahzad >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Sep 16 07:46:35 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:46:35 +0300 Subject: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: <4C91FEFA.7020206@wzb.eu> References: <11170.61060.qm@web55203.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <56BFA3EF-B7F0-4293-8F96-B13464904EF1@acm.org> <4C91FEFA.7020206@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <6C9CFF86-BB2F-498E-9463-10995FBF81EB@acm.org> Well, the more i think on it, the better i like. a. On 16 Sep 2010, at 14:26, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi all, > > I realize I could have said a word more or two to explain why I don't support the nobel prize suggestion. One of the reasons has been brought up several times. The Internet is not a human being and therefore the wrong entity to receive this prize. The second reason is that the Internet is clearly collective achievement that can hardly be attributed to a single person. It would not be the first time that an individual gets honored for the achievements of a group of people. However, I don't understand why we would support such a practice. > > I apologize for my blunt statement last night. I probably thought somebody should better say no to this idea before it has a chance to catch on. > > jeanette > > On 16.09.2010 10:41, Avri Doria wrote: >> hi, >> >> I initially read it that way and though that Internet related sciences might be an interesting category. Not sure what the right name for the category would be. >> >> then i realized that this is probably not what the original sender meant. >> >> so I thought of the Internet in its role of bringing people together and fostering community and making the world much smaller and enabling an access to knowledge that was unthinkable for most of world history. I was not sure that this was enough to merit a Nobel prize yet because there was still so much to do and still so may warts on the Internet that needed to be fixed. but Obama got the prize for peace making before he had done anything, so I figured that maybe the Internet and the multitude of people who invested their lives into building this thing we all depend on (whether we curse it out or bless it), deserved it more than he did at the time. but i was still not convinced. >> >> then i saw the messages of this list and got very afraid of having an opinion on the topic. >> >> so please forget i said anything. >> >> a. >> >> >> >> On 16 Sep 2010, at 12:29, shaila mistry wrote: >> >>> Hi all >>> I saw it very differently. I saw the Internet as anothe category. Such as literature and science. Etc. In this context the Nobel prize would still be given to an individual. For their exceptional contributions in the field. >>> >>> In a skeptical note , when I look at some tecie >>> >>> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at); >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder; >>> Subject: Re: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet >>> Sent: Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:49:49 AM >>> >>> May I endorse the thoughts of Parminder, I do not see what can really be gained by the nobel prize for the internet, different from giving it to UNHCR, AI etc to point out their good work as a model for humanity and support their concerns. >>> >>> Wolfgang Benedek >>> >>> >>> Am 16.09.10 10:17 schrieb "parminder" unter: >>> >>> I am sorry, but I hate to give human status to any artifact.... even the Internet... And Nobel prize is for human beings, maybe the best among them or whatever..... Next we may hear is that 'the Internet has rights'..... not at all going in good directions if you ask me :) >>> >>> (At a recent conf i was given this T shirt - dont think what the Internet can do you you - think what you can do to the Internet -- this kind of expressions almost scare me, and make me feel belittled as a human being in front of a 'system'... Well if we are insistent on going down that path then lets give noble prize to the 'system' instead, the all powerful one) >>> >>> parmindr >>> >>> On Thursday 16 September 2010 01:26 PM, Fiorello Cortiana wrote: >>> >>> >>> We have to be pragmatic, the Nobel Prize to the net could be useful to >>> recognize it as a commons, the wider public space in the human history, not >>> a new infrastructure after telegraph, telephon, radio, television and PC. This is why we need an extension of the rights in >>> a new way: multilevel and multistakeholder. I know what I say under >>> Berlusconi's Government the freedom of expression on the net is in peril. >>> With Stefano Rodotà and many other we gathered 400.000 signatures under an >>> appeal against an awful proposal of law and this time we won. Ready to the next one :) >>> >>> Fiorello >>> >>> -----Messaggio originale----- >>> Da: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] >>> Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 9.30 >>> A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann >>> Cc: Shahzad Ahmad >>> Oggetto: Re: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet >>> >>> I of course agree with Jean, although perhaps I would not phrase it as bluntly :) >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 09/15/2010 07:20 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I think this is a real rubbish idea and I am very much against sending >>> any message to that effect. >>> jeanette >>> >>> On 15.09.2010 16:05, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the support >>> for the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing session or >>> in regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if IGF sends >>> a strong message out on this. >>> >>> Best wishes and regards >>> >>> Shahzad >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shahzad at bytesforall.net Thu Sep 16 07:56:10 2010 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:56:10 +0300 Subject: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: <6C9CFF86-BB2F-498E-9463-10995FBF81EB@acm.org> References: <11170.61060.qm@web55203.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <56BFA3EF-B7F0-4293-8F96-B13464904EF1@acm.org> <4C91FEFA.7020206@wzb.eu> <6C9CFF86-BB2F-498E-9463-10995FBF81EB@acm.org> Message-ID: <000301cb5596$28cc3cc0$7a64b640$@net> :) But Jeanette, if at all Internet gets it, it does not have to go to an individual... See how they gave it to IPCC. I shared the link earlier... This is NOT my idea... it is a campaign already and some very credible organizations and many noble laureates rallying for it. Best wishes Shahzad -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 2:47 PM To: IGC Subject: Re: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet Well, the more i think on it, the better i like. a. On 16 Sep 2010, at 14:26, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi all, > > I realize I could have said a word more or two to explain why I don't support the nobel prize suggestion. One of the reasons has been brought up several times. The Internet is not a human being and therefore the wrong entity to receive this prize. The second reason is that the Internet is clearly collective achievement that can hardly be attributed to a single person. It would not be the first time that an individual gets honored for the achievements of a group of people. However, I don't understand why we would support such a practice. > > I apologize for my blunt statement last night. I probably thought somebody should better say no to this idea before it has a chance to catch on. > > jeanette > > On 16.09.2010 10:41, Avri Doria wrote: >> hi, >> >> I initially read it that way and though that Internet related sciences might be an interesting category. Not sure what the right name for the category would be. >> >> then i realized that this is probably not what the original sender meant. >> >> so I thought of the Internet in its role of bringing people together and fostering community and making the world much smaller and enabling an access to knowledge that was unthinkable for most of world history. I was not sure that this was enough to merit a Nobel prize yet because there was still so much to do and still so may warts on the Internet that needed to be fixed. but Obama got the prize for peace making before he had done anything, so I figured that maybe the Internet and the multitude of people who invested their lives into building this thing we all depend on (whether we curse it out or bless it), deserved it more than he did at the time. but i was still not convinced. >> >> then i saw the messages of this list and got very afraid of having an opinion on the topic. >> >> so please forget i said anything. >> >> a. >> >> >> >> On 16 Sep 2010, at 12:29, shaila mistry wrote: >> >>> Hi all >>> I saw it very differently. I saw the Internet as anothe category. Such as literature and science. Etc. In this context the Nobel prize would still be given to an individual. For their exceptional contributions in the field. >>> >>> In a skeptical note , when I look at some tecie >>> >>> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at); >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder; >>> Subject: Re: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet >>> Sent: Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:49:49 AM >>> >>> May I endorse the thoughts of Parminder, I do not see what can really be gained by the nobel prize for the internet, different from giving it to UNHCR, AI etc to point out their good work as a model for humanity and support their concerns. >>> >>> Wolfgang Benedek >>> >>> >>> Am 16.09.10 10:17 schrieb "parminder" unter: >>> >>> I am sorry, but I hate to give human status to any artifact.... even the Internet... And Nobel prize is for human beings, maybe the best among them or whatever..... Next we may hear is that 'the Internet has rights'..... not at all going in good directions if you ask me :) >>> >>> (At a recent conf i was given this T shirt - dont think what the Internet can do you you - think what you can do to the Internet -- this kind of expressions almost scare me, and make me feel belittled as a human being in front of a 'system'... Well if we are insistent on going down that path then lets give noble prize to the 'system' instead, the all powerful one) >>> >>> parmindr >>> >>> On Thursday 16 September 2010 01:26 PM, Fiorello Cortiana wrote: >>> >>> >>> We have to be pragmatic, the Nobel Prize to the net could be useful to >>> recognize it as a commons, the wider public space in the human history, not >>> a new infrastructure after telegraph, telephon, radio, television and PC. This is why we need an extension of the rights in >>> a new way: multilevel and multistakeholder. I know what I say under >>> Berlusconi's Government the freedom of expression on the net is in peril. >>> With Stefano Rodotà and many other we gathered 400.000 signatures under an >>> appeal against an awful proposal of law and this time we won. Ready to the next one :) >>> >>> Fiorello >>> >>> -----Messaggio originale----- >>> Da: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] >>> Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 9.30 >>> A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann >>> Cc: Shahzad Ahmad >>> Oggetto: Re: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet >>> >>> I of course agree with Jean, although perhaps I would not phrase it as bluntly :) >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 09/15/2010 07:20 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I think this is a real rubbish idea and I am very much against sending >>> any message to that effect. >>> jeanette >>> >>> On 15.09.2010 16:05, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the support >>> for the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing session or >>> in regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if IGF sends >>> a strong message out on this. >>> >>> Best wishes and regards >>> >>> Shahzad >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From brett at accessnow.org Thu Sep 16 08:02:02 2010 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:02:02 +0300 Subject: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: <4C91FEFA.7020206@wzb.eu> References: <11170.61060.qm@web55203.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <56BFA3EF-B7F0-4293-8F96-B13464904EF1@acm.org> <4C91FEFA.7020206@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Hi, Good discussion! If you look at the manifesto put forward by the proposers ( internetforpeace.org) it's pretty clear that the award is not for the infrastructure or the person, but for the global web of users: *We have finally realized that the Internet* is much more than a network of computers. It is an endless web of people. Men and women from every corner of the globe are connecting to one another, thanks to the biggest social interface ever known to humanity. Digital culture has laid the foundations for a new kind of society. And this society is advancing dialogue, debate and consensus through communication. Because democracy has always flourished where there is openness, acceptance, discussion and participation. And contact with others has always been the most effective antidote against hatred and conflict. That's why the Internet is a tool for peace. That's why anyone who uses it can sow the seeds of non-violence. And that's why the next *Nobel Peace Prize should go to the Net. A Nobel for each and every one of us.* I understand that people who would then receive the award would be the 'founders' of the internet including Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee and a few others on 'our' behalf. On balance, I would argue that many of the key drivers of conflict have been weakened as a result of the internet. Whilst it is used for violent or aggressive purposes, the internet has contributed significantly to the 'fraternity between nations' (peace prize criteria), to create political stability, to protect and promote human rights and to allow for cross border relationships. I dont feel overly strongly about this, but it is certainly a discussion starter, and waves the flag for the power of the internet to achieve peace and understanding, and serves as a warning that an open internet is worth fighting for. Brett On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi all, > > I realize I could have said a word more or two to explain why I don't > support the nobel prize suggestion. One of the reasons has been brought up > several times. The Internet is not a human being and therefore the wrong > entity to receive this prize. The second reason is that the Internet is > clearly collective achievement that can hardly be attributed to a single > person. It would not be the first time that an individual gets honored for > the achievements of a group of people. However, I don't understand why we > would support such a practice. > > I apologize for my blunt statement last night. I probably thought somebody > should better say no to this idea before it has a chance to catch on. > > jeanette > > > On 16.09.2010 10:41, Avri Doria wrote: > >> hi, >> >> I initially read it that way and though that Internet related sciences >> might be an interesting category. Not sure what the right name for the >> category would be. >> >> then i realized that this is probably not what the original sender meant. >> >> so I thought of the Internet in its role of bringing people together and >> fostering community and making the world much smaller and enabling an access >> to knowledge that was unthinkable for most of world history. I was not sure >> that this was enough to merit a Nobel prize yet because there was still so >> much to do and still so may warts on the Internet that needed to be fixed. >> but Obama got the prize for peace making before he had done anything, so I >> figured that maybe the Internet and the multitude of people who invested >> their lives into building this thing we all depend on (whether we curse it >> out or bless it), deserved it more than he did at the time. but i was still >> not convinced. >> >> then i saw the messages of this list and got very afraid of having an >> opinion on the topic. >> >> so please forget i said anything. >> >> a. >> >> >> >> On 16 Sep 2010, at 12:29, shaila mistry wrote: >> >> Hi all >>> I saw it very differently. I saw the Internet as anothe category. Such as >>> literature and science. Etc. In this context the Nobel prize would still be >>> given to an individual. For their exceptional contributions in the field. >>> >>> In a skeptical note , when I look at some tecie >>> >>> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)< >>> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>; >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder< >>> parminder at itforchange.net>; >>> Subject: Re: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet >>> Sent: Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:49:49 AM >>> >>> May I endorse the thoughts of Parminder, I do not see what can really be >>> gained by the nobel prize for the internet, different from giving it to >>> UNHCR, AI etc to point out their good work as a model for humanity and >>> support their concerns. >>> >>> Wolfgang Benedek >>> >>> >>> Am 16.09.10 10:17 schrieb "parminder" unter: >>> >>> I am sorry, but I hate to give human status to any artifact.... even the >>> Internet... And Nobel prize is for human beings, maybe the best among them >>> or whatever..... Next we may hear is that 'the Internet has rights'..... not >>> at all going in good directions if you ask me :) >>> >>> (At a recent conf i was given this T shirt - dont think what the Internet >>> can do you you - think what you can do to the Internet -- this kind of >>> expressions almost scare me, and make me feel belittled as a human being in >>> front of a 'system'... Well if we are insistent on going down that path then >>> lets give noble prize to the 'system' instead, the all powerful one) >>> >>> parmindr >>> >>> On Thursday 16 September 2010 01:26 PM, Fiorello Cortiana wrote: >>> >>> >>> We have to be pragmatic, the Nobel Prize to the net could be useful to >>> recognize it as a commons, the wider public space in the human history, >>> not >>> a new infrastructure after telegraph, telephon, radio, television and >>> PC. This is why we need an extension of the rights in >>> a new way: multilevel and multistakeholder. I know what I say under >>> Berlusconi's Government the freedom of expression on the net is in >>> peril. >>> With Stefano Rodotà and many other we gathered 400.000 signatures under >>> an >>> appeal against an awful proposal of law and this time we won. Ready to >>> the next one :) >>> >>> Fiorello >>> >>> -----Messaggio originale----- >>> Da: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] >>> Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 9.30 >>> A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann >>> Cc: Shahzad Ahmad >>> Oggetto: Re: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet >>> >>> I of course agree with Jean, although perhaps I would not phrase it as >>> bluntly :) >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 09/15/2010 07:20 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I think this is a real rubbish idea and I am very much against sending >>> any message to that effect. >>> jeanette >>> >>> On 15.09.2010 16:05, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the support >>> for the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing session or >>> in regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if IGF sends >>> a strong message out on this. >>> >>> Best wishes and regards >>> >>> Shahzad >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Brett Solomon Executive Director Access accessnow.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 cls at rkey.com Thu Sep 16 08:35:18 2010 From: cls at rkey.com (Craig Simon) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:35:18 -0400 Subject: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: References: <11170.61060.qm@web55203.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <56BFA3EF-B7F0-4293-8F96-B13464904EF1@acm.org> <4C91FEFA.7020206@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4C920F06.9080904@rkey.com> Hello All, I strongly agree with Jeanette. The "Internet" does not merit a Nobel Prize. It would be a shame to award it to some incorporeal entity in light of the many deserving individuals and agencies who have made great sacrifices in the service of peace and human liberty, and whose cause could be immediately advanced by the Nobel Committee's recognition. Craig Simon On 9/16/2010 8:02 AM, Brett Solomon wrote: > Hi, > > Good discussion! > > If you look at the manifesto put forward by the proposers > (internetforpeace.org ) it's pretty clear > that the award is not for the infrastructure or the person, but for the > global web of users: > > *We have finally realized that the Internet* is much more than a network > of computers. It is an endless web of people. Men and women from every > corner of the globe are connecting to one another, thanks to the biggest > social interface ever known to humanity. > Digital culture has laid the foundations for a new kind of society. And > this society is advancing dialogue, debate and consensus through > communication. Because democracy has always flourished where there is > openness, acceptance, discussion and participation. And contact with > others has always been the most effective antidote against hatred and > conflict. That's why the Internet is a tool for peace. That's why anyone > who uses it can sow the seeds of non-violence. And that's why the next > *Nobel Peace Prize should go to the Net. A Nobel for each and every one > of us.* > > I understand that people who would then receive the award would be the > 'founders' of the internet including Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee and a > few others on 'our' behalf. > > On balance, I would argue that many of the key drivers of conflict have > been weakened as a result of the internet. Whilst it is used for violent > or aggressive purposes, the internet has contributed significantly to > the 'fraternity between nations' (peace prize criteria), to create > political stability, to protect and promote human rights and to allow > for cross border relationships. > > I dont feel overly strongly about this, but it is certainly a discussion > starter, and waves the flag for the power of the internet to achieve > peace and understanding, and serves as a warning that an open internet > is worth fighting for. > > Brett > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: > > Hi all, > > I realize I could have said a word more or two to explain why I > don't support the nobel prize suggestion. One of the reasons has > been brought up several times. The Internet is not a human being and > therefore the wrong entity to receive this prize. The second reason > is that the Internet is clearly collective achievement that can > hardly be attributed to a single person. It would not be the first > time that an individual gets honored for the achievements of a group > of people. However, I don't understand why we would support such a > practice. > > I apologize for my blunt statement last night. I probably thought > somebody should better say no to this idea before it has a chance to > catch on. > > jeanette > > > On 16.09.2010 10:41, Avri Doria wrote: > > hi, > > I initially read it that way and though that Internet related > sciences might be an interesting category. Not sure what the > right name for the category would be. > > then i realized that this is probably not what the original > sender meant. > > so I thought of the Internet in its role of bringing people > together and fostering community and making the world much > smaller and enabling an access to knowledge that was unthinkable > for most of world history. I was not sure that this was enough > to merit a Nobel prize yet because there was still so much to do > and still so may warts on the Internet that needed to be fixed. > but Obama got the prize for peace making before he had done > anything, so I figured that maybe the Internet and the multitude > of people who invested their lives into building this thing we > all depend on (whether we curse it out or bless it), deserved it > more than he did at the time. but i was still not convinced. > > then i saw the messages of this list and got very afraid of > having an opinion on the topic. > > so please forget i said anything. > > a. > > > > On 16 Sep 2010, at 12:29, shaila mistry wrote: > > Hi all > I saw it very differently. I saw the Internet as anothe > category. Such as literature and science. Etc. In this > context the Nobel prize would still be given to an > individual. For their exceptional contributions in the field. > > In a skeptical note , when I look at some tecie > > From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at > ) >; > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >; > parminder >; > Subject: Re: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet > Sent: Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:49:49 AM > > May I endorse the thoughts of Parminder, I do not see what > can really be gained by the nobel prize for the internet, > different from giving it to UNHCR, AI etc to point out their > good work as a model for humanity and support their concerns. > > Wolfgang Benedek > > > Am 16.09.10 10:17 schrieb "parminder" > unter >: > > I am sorry, but I hate to give human status to any > artifact.... even the Internet... And Nobel prize is for > human beings, maybe the best among them or whatever..... > Next we may hear is that 'the Internet has rights'..... not > at all going in good directions if you ask me :) > > (At a recent conf i was given this T shirt - dont think what > the Internet can do you you - think what you can do to the > Internet -- this kind of expressions almost scare me, and > make me feel belittled as a human being in front of a > 'system'... Well if we are insistent on going down that path > then lets give noble prize to the 'system' instead, the all > powerful one) > > parmindr > > On Thursday 16 September 2010 01:26 PM, Fiorello Cortiana wrote: > > > We have to be pragmatic, the Nobel Prize to the net could be > useful to > recognize it as a commons, the wider public space in the > human history, not > a new infrastructure after telegraph, telephon, radio, > television and PC. This is why we need an extension of the > rights in > a new way: multilevel and multistakeholder. I know what I > say under > Berlusconi's Government the freedom of expression on the > net is in peril. > With Stefano Rodotà and many other we gathered 400.000 > signatures under an > appeal against an awful proposal of law and this time we > won. Ready to the next one :) > > Fiorello > > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca > ] > Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 9.30 > A: governance at lists.cpsr.org > ; Jeanette Hofmann > Cc: Shahzad Ahmad > Oggetto: Re: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet > > I of course agree with Jean, although perhaps I would not > phrase it as bluntly :) > > --c.a. > > On 09/15/2010 07:20 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > I think this is a real rubbish idea and I am very much > against sending > any message to that effect. > jeanette > > On 15.09.2010 16:05, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > > > > I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the > support > for the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing > session or > in regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if > IGF sends > a strong message out on this. > > Best wishes and regards > > Shahzad > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Brett Solomon > Executive Director > Access > accessnow.org > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Sep 16 08:41:35 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:41:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] More multilingual IGF? Message-ID: In the workshop this morning on Innovative Internet Governance Ideas and Approaches, I came to an idea and spoke it - Why don't we try to make some of the IGF sessions for the next round more "multi-lingual"? Depending on the subject and speakers or organizers, some session's working language can be Spanish, French, Chinese, Russian or Arabic, all major UN languages. Current default for almost ALL sessions, main session or workshop or open space are all done in English as the main/working language while other languages are translated. I don't mean to make all equal. Some sessions can use non-English languages as the primary language, say Spanish on certain cases. I spoke this idea with Nitin casually and he said nothing prohibits it from happening. I am happy to listen more presentations in French, say so long as they are translated into English. This may increase the sense of ownership for many non-English speaking people and also create more level playing field. Real main session can still remain in English, and also working language as well. Just a suggestion. 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 karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int Thu Sep 16 10:11:03 2010 From: karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int (Karim ATTOUMANI) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:11:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] More multilingual IGF? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C922577.4060709@ties.itu.int> Izumi and all, Thank you first for your proposal and I totaly support this idea in the sense that if we promote the participation of everyone in this multi-stakeholders concept, we should find ways of inclusive participation as multi-liguages. If each participant can say what he thinks when needed without having to learn a language, it would be great and pratical. It's a great idea that deserves the support of everyone and that will bring more to the internet that we do not imagine now. It'll be easy for everyone to contribute in IG debate Regards Karim ATTOUMANI MOHAMED Comoros GAC member, Taking part on the ISOC NGL Programme with DiploFoundation Le 16/09/2010 14:41, Izumi AIZU a écrit : > In the workshop this morning on Innovative Internet Governance Ideas > and Approaches, > I came to an idea and spoke it - > > Why don't we try to make some of the IGF sessions for the next round > more "multi-lingual"? > Depending on the subject and speakers or organizers, some session's > working language > can be Spanish, French, Chinese, Russian or Arabic, all major UN languages. > Current default for almost ALL sessions, main session or workshop or open space > are all done in English as the main/working language while other languages are > translated. > > I don't mean to make all equal. Some sessions can use non-English languages > as the primary language, say Spanish on certain cases. > > I spoke this idea with Nitin casually and he said nothing prohibits it > from happening. > I am happy to listen more presentations in French, say so long as they are > translated into English. > > This may increase the sense of ownership for many non-English speaking > people and also create more level playing field. Real main session can still > remain in English, and also working language as well. > > Just a suggestion. > > 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 > > __________ Information NOD32 5454 (20100916) __________ > > Ce message a ete verifie par NOD32 Antivirus System. > http://www.nod32.com > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 10:13:30 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:13:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] More multilingual IGF? In-Reply-To: <4C922577.4060709@ties.itu.int> References: <4C922577.4060709@ties.itu.int> Message-ID: <132945.66321.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi, Izumi and all, By the way during some sessions speakers or presenters are already speaking non-English language and the their words are being translated accordingly. For example the following session was non-english and also had been translated accordingly: IGF2010 Day-1 Date: 14/09/2010     IGF Press Conference with     IGF Chair the Lithuanian Minister of Transport and Communications Eligijus Masiulis and     Assistant Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs UNDESA Jomo Kwame Sundaram. Imran Ahmed Shah Founder & Executive Member Urdu Internet Society ________________________________ From: Karim ATTOUMANI To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU Sent: Thu, 16 September, 2010 19:11:03 Subject: Re: [governance] More multilingual IGF? Izumi and all, Thank you first for your proposal and I totaly support this idea in the sense that if we promote the participation of everyone in this multi-stakeholders concept, we should find ways of inclusive participation as multi-liguages. If each participant can say what he thinks when needed without having to learn a language, it would be great and pratical. It's a great idea that deserves the support of everyone and that will bring more to the internet that we do not imagine now. It'll be easy for everyone to contribute in IG debate Regards Karim ATTOUMANI MOHAMED Comoros GAC member, Taking part on the ISOC NGL Programme with DiploFoundation Le 16/09/2010 14:41, Izumi AIZU a écrit : In the workshop this morning on Innovative Internet Governance Ideas and Approaches, I came to an idea and spoke it - Why don't we try to make some of the IGF sessions for the next round more "multi-lingual"? Depending on the subject and speakers or organizers, some session's working language can be Spanish, French, Chinese, Russian or Arabic, all major UN languages. Current default for almost ALL sessions, main session or workshop or open space are all done in English as the main/working language while other languages are translated. I don't mean to make all equal. Some sessions can use non-English languages as the primary language, say Spanish on certain cases. I spoke this idea with Nitin casually and he said nothing prohibits it from happening. I am happy to listen more presentations in French, say so long as they are translated into English. This may increase the sense of ownership for many non-English speaking people and also create more level playing field. Real main session can still remain in English, and also working language as well. Just a suggestion. 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 __________ Information NOD32 5454 (20100916) __________ Ce message a ete verifie par NOD32 Antivirus System. http://www.nod32.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 10:16:21 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:16:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] More multilingual IGF? In-Reply-To: <132945.66321.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4C922577.4060709@ties.itu.int> <132945.66321.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <653796.3344.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Meeting Sessions UNO & ICANN are also translated in multiple languages where the speaker may speak any one of them.   ICANN has arranged a discussion round at ICANN's 36th Meeting at Seoul and that compromises on 5 or 6 round tables and each table has participants of one of the 5 (UNO official) languages inclkuding Korean. However, at that time the organizer was speaking English.   B/R Imran ________________________________ From: Imran Ahmed Shah To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Karim ATTOUMANI ; Izumi AIZU Cc: Imran UISoc Sent: Thu, 16 September, 2010 19:13:30 Subject: Re: [governance] More multilingual IGF? Hi, Izumi and all, By the way during some sessions speakers or presenters are already speaking non-English language and the their words are being translated accordingly. For example the following session was non-english and also had been translated accordingly: IGF2010 Day-1 Date: 14/09/2010     IGF Press Conference with     IGF Chair the Lithuanian Minister of Transport and Communications Eligijus Masiulis and     Assistant Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs UNDESA Jomo Kwame Sundaram. Imran Ahmed Shah Founder & Executive Member Urdu Internet Society ________________________________ From: Karim ATTOUMANI To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU Sent: Thu, 16 September, 2010 19:11:03 Subject: Re: [governance] More multilingual IGF? Izumi and all, Thank you first for your proposal and I totaly support this idea in the sense that if we promote the participation of everyone in this multi-stakeholders concept, we should find ways of inclusive participation as multi-liguages. If each participant can say what he thinks when needed without having to learn a language, it would be great and pratical. It's a great idea that deserves the support of everyone and that will bring more to the internet that we do not imagine now. It'll be easy for everyone to contribute in IG debate Regards Karim ATTOUMANI MOHAMED Comoros GAC member, Taking part on the ISOC NGL Programme with DiploFoundation Le 16/09/2010 14:41, Izumi AIZU a écrit : In the workshop this morning on Innovative Internet Governance Ideas and Approaches, I came to an idea and spoke it - Why don't we try to make some of the IGF sessions for the next round more "multi-lingual"? Depending on the subject and speakers or organizers, some session's working language can be Spanish, French, Chinese, Russian or Arabic, all major UN languages. Current default for almost ALL sessions, main session or workshop or open space are all done in English as the main/working language while other languages are translated. I don't mean to make all equal. Some sessions can use non-English languages as the primary language, say Spanish on certain cases. I spoke this idea with Nitin casually and he said nothing prohibits it from happening. I am happy to listen more presentations in French, say so long as they are translated into English. This may increase the sense of ownership for many non-English speaking people and also create more level playing field. Real main session can still remain in English, and also working language as well. Just a suggestion. 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 __________ Information NOD32 5454 (20100916) __________ Ce message a ete verifie par NOD32 Antivirus System. http://www.nod32.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Thu Sep 16 10:19:41 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:19:41 -0400 Subject: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: <4C920F06.9080904@rkey.com> References: <11170.61060.qm@web55203.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <56BFA3EF-B7F0-4293-8F96-B13464904EF1@acm.org> <4C91FEFA.7020206@wzb.eu> <4C920F06.9080904@rkey.com> Message-ID: I would think the humanist idea of the prize by Nobel was aimed at acknowledging human agency for betterment of human conditions, peace among nations, etc. The internet did not create itself; people created it. The internet does nothing, humans connected through it do (and yes, there is a lot of negativity taking place among some of those people, too). The IPCC example is not unique: it is the same concept as when the Prize is giving to teams of scientists (physicists, biologists, etc.) who collaborated to produce the outcome/output by which their merit is being recognized. So by that standard, it'd make perfect sense to advocate that the engineers and scientists who worked hard to bring about the internet be nolelized, but we must understand that advocating for the internet itself is comparable to nothing done before by the N. Committee --it'd be a quantum leap, so to speak! It might even be fundamentally against the philosophical foundations and views of the Nobels as I refer to above. So don't be surprised if that idea qualifies as nonsense in the eyes of some. A few weeks ago, in another discussion I suggested that we may try and offer a definition for the internet (in the context of social action). Some may say it is the people connected, some other the infrastructure (both illustrated in this discussion) yet some others the protocol stack (just bare specifications), etc. So this is not a given, and as I said, there are people on the internet saying and doing very nasty things too, including against fraternity among nations. Down the proposed path, next thing you might hear is that, like the King, the Internet has two bodies... Mawaki On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Craig Simon wrote: > Hello All, > > I strongly agree with Jeanette. The "Internet" does not merit a Nobel > Prize. It would be a shame to award it to some incorporeal entity in light > of the many deserving individuals and agencies who have made great > sacrifices in the service of peace and human liberty, and whose cause could > be immediately advanced by the Nobel Committee's recognition. > > Craig Simon > > > On 9/16/2010 8:02 AM, Brett Solomon wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Good discussion! >> >> If you look at the manifesto put forward by the proposers >> (internetforpeace.org ) it's pretty clear >> >> that the award is not for the infrastructure or the person, but for the >> global web of users: >> >> *We have finally realized that the Internet* is much more than a network >> of computers. It is an endless web of people. Men and women from every >> corner of the globe are connecting to one another, thanks to the biggest >> social interface ever known to humanity. >> Digital culture has laid the foundations for a new kind of society. And >> this society is advancing dialogue, debate and consensus through >> communication. Because democracy has always flourished where there is >> openness, acceptance, discussion and participation. And contact with >> others has always been the most effective antidote against hatred and >> conflict. That's why the Internet is a tool for peace. That's why anyone >> who uses it can sow the seeds of non-violence. And that's why the next >> *Nobel Peace Prize should go to the Net. A Nobel for each and every one >> of us.* >> >> I understand that people who would then receive the award would be the >> 'founders' of the internet including Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee and a >> few others on 'our' behalf. >> >> On balance, I would argue that many of the key drivers of conflict have >> been weakened as a result of the internet. Whilst it is used for violent >> or aggressive purposes, the internet has contributed significantly to >> the 'fraternity between nations' (peace prize criteria), to create >> political stability, to protect and promote human rights and to allow >> for cross border relationships. >> >> I dont feel overly strongly about this, but it is certainly a discussion >> starter, and waves the flag for the power of the internet to achieve >> peace and understanding, and serves as a warning that an open internet >> is worth fighting for. >> >> Brett >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Jeanette Hofmann > > wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I realize I could have said a word more or two to explain why I >> don't support the nobel prize suggestion. One of the reasons has >> been brought up several times. The Internet is not a human being and >> therefore the wrong entity to receive this prize. The second reason >> is that the Internet is clearly collective achievement that can >> hardly be attributed to a single person. It would not be the first >> time that an individual gets honored for the achievements of a group >> of people. However, I don't understand why we would support such a >> practice. >> >> I apologize for my blunt statement last night. I probably thought >> somebody should better say no to this idea before it has a chance to >> catch on. >> >> jeanette >> >> >> On 16.09.2010 10:41, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> hi, >> >> I initially read it that way and though that Internet related >> sciences might be an interesting category. Not sure what the >> right name for the category would be. >> >> then i realized that this is probably not what the original >> sender meant. >> >> so I thought of the Internet in its role of bringing people >> together and fostering community and making the world much >> smaller and enabling an access to knowledge that was unthinkable >> for most of world history. I was not sure that this was enough >> to merit a Nobel prize yet because there was still so much to do >> and still so may warts on the Internet that needed to be fixed. >> but Obama got the prize for peace making before he had done >> anything, so I figured that maybe the Internet and the multitude >> of people who invested their lives into building this thing we >> all depend on (whether we curse it out or bless it), deserved it >> more than he did at the time. but i was still not convinced. >> >> then i saw the messages of this list and got very afraid of >> having an opinion on the topic. >> >> so please forget i said anything. >> >> a. >> >> >> >> On 16 Sep 2010, at 12:29, shaila mistry wrote: >> >> Hi all >> I saw it very differently. I saw the Internet as anothe >> category. Such as literature and science. Etc. In this >> context the Nobel prize would still be given to an >> individual. For their exceptional contributions in the field. >> >> In a skeptical note , when I look at some tecie >> >> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at >> )< >> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at >> >; >> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > >; >> parminder> >; >> >> Subject: Re: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet >> Sent: Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:49:49 AM >> >> May I endorse the thoughts of Parminder, I do not see what >> can really be gained by the nobel prize for the internet, >> different from giving it to UNHCR, AI etc to point out their >> good work as a model for humanity and support their concerns. >> >> Wolfgang Benedek >> >> >> Am 16.09.10 10:17 schrieb "parminder" >> unter> >: >> >> >> I am sorry, but I hate to give human status to any >> artifact.... even the Internet... And Nobel prize is for >> human beings, maybe the best among them or whatever..... >> Next we may hear is that 'the Internet has rights'..... not >> at all going in good directions if you ask me :) >> >> (At a recent conf i was given this T shirt - dont think what >> the Internet can do you you - think what you can do to the >> Internet -- this kind of expressions almost scare me, and >> make me feel belittled as a human being in front of a >> 'system'... Well if we are insistent on going down that path >> then lets give noble prize to the 'system' instead, the all >> powerful one) >> >> parmindr >> >> On Thursday 16 September 2010 01:26 PM, Fiorello Cortiana >> wrote: >> >> >> We have to be pragmatic, the Nobel Prize to the net could be >> useful to >> recognize it as a commons, the wider public space in the >> human history, not >> a new infrastructure after telegraph, telephon, radio, >> television and PC. This is why we need an extension of the >> rights in >> a new way: multilevel and multistakeholder. I know what I >> say under >> Berlusconi's Government the freedom of expression on the >> net is in peril. >> With Stefano Rodotà and many other we gathered 400.000 >> signatures under an >> appeal against an awful proposal of law and this time we >> won. Ready to the next one :) >> >> Fiorello >> >> -----Messaggio originale----- >> Da: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca >> ] >> Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 9.30 >> A: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> ; Jeanette Hofmann >> >> Cc: Shahzad Ahmad >> Oggetto: Re: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet >> >> I of course agree with Jean, although perhaps I would not >> phrase it as bluntly :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 09/15/2010 07:20 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> >> >> I think this is a real rubbish idea and I am very much >> against sending >> any message to that effect. >> jeanette >> >> On 15.09.2010 16:05, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >> >> >> >> I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the >> support >> for the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing >> session or >> in regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if >> IGF sends >> a strong message out on this. >> >> Best wishes and regards >> >> Shahzad >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Brett Solomon >> Executive Director >> Access >> accessnow.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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 10:20:32 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] More multilingual IGF? In-Reply-To: <653796.3344.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4C922577.4060709@ties.itu.int> <132945.66321.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <653796.3344.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <322293.14867.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> However, this is a good idea to organize MORE Sessions in IGF Meeting for non-English language that will support multilingualism.   Extending this IDEA of Multilingualism support, workshops and discussion forum at IGF meetings may be managed more than UNO languages for regional prospective. I would like to add Urdu Language as well.   B/R Imran ________________________________ From: Imran Ahmed Shah To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Karim ATTOUMANI ; Izumi AIZU Cc: Imran UISoc Sent: Thu, 16 September, 2010 19:16:21 Subject: Re: [governance] More multilingual IGF? Meeting Sessions UNO & ICANN are also translated in multiple languages where the speaker may speak any one of them.   ICANN has arranged a discussion round at ICANN's 36th Meeting at Seoul and that compromises on 5 or 6 round tables and each table has participants of one of the 5 (UNO official) languages inclkuding Korean. However, at that time the organizer was speaking English.   B/R Imran ________________________________ From: Imran Ahmed Shah To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Karim ATTOUMANI ; Izumi AIZU Cc: Imran UISoc Sent: Thu, 16 September, 2010 19:13:30 Subject: Re: [governance] More multilingual IGF? Hi, Izumi and all, By the way during some sessions speakers or presenters are already speaking non-English language and the their words are being translated accordingly. For example the following session was non-english and also had been translated accordingly: IGF2010 Day-1 Date: 14/09/2010     IGF Press Conference with     IGF Chair the Lithuanian Minister of Transport and Communications Eligijus Masiulis and     Assistant Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs UNDESA Jomo Kwame Sundaram. Imran Ahmed Shah Founder & Executive Member Urdu Internet Society ________________________________ From: Karim ATTOUMANI To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU Sent: Thu, 16 September, 2010 19:11:03 Subject: Re: [governance] More multilingual IGF? Izumi and all, Thank you first for your proposal and I totaly support this idea in the sense that if we promote the participation of everyone in this multi-stakeholders concept, we should find ways of inclusive participation as multi-liguages. If each participant can say what he thinks when needed without having to learn a language, it would be great and pratical. It's a great idea that deserves the support of everyone and that will bring more to the internet that we do not imagine now. It'll be easy for everyone to contribute in IG debate Regards Karim ATTOUMANI MOHAMED Comoros GAC member, Taking part on the ISOC NGL Programme with DiploFoundation Le 16/09/2010 14:41, Izumi AIZU a écrit : In the workshop this morning on Innovative Internet Governance Ideas and Approaches, I came to an idea and spoke it - Why don't we try to make some of the IGF sessions for the next round more "multi-lingual"? Depending on the subject and speakers or organizers, some session's working language can be Spanish, French, Chinese, Russian or Arabic, all major UN languages. Current default for almost ALL sessions, main session or workshop or open space are all done in English as the main/working language while other languages are translated. I don't mean to make all equal. Some sessions can use non-English languages as the primary language, say Spanish on certain cases. I spoke this idea with Nitin casually and he said nothing prohibits it from happening. I am happy to listen more presentations in French, say so long as they are translated into English. This may increase the sense of ownership for many non-English speaking people and also create more level playing field. Real main session can still remain in English, and also working language as well. Just a suggestion. 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 __________ Information NOD32 5454 (20100916) __________ Ce message a ete verifie par NOD32 Antivirus System. http://www.nod32.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Sep 16 10:44:12 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:44:12 -0700 Subject: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think emphasizing the collective nature (co-creation) of the Internet is rather a good thing. Also as Mawaki says demonstrating that things are created by people is also a good thing. And finally emphasizing (as one would hope) the developmental and distributive (information and capacity), emergency response and peace building impacts and opportunities of the Internet would overall be a good thing. If nothing else it would point out for those who might need it to be pointed out, that the Internet is not just about making billions in the stockmarket or wherever. It should also be pointed out that according to some reputable sources http://www.city.ac.uk/whatson/2009/10_oct/291009_Peter_Willetts.html the actual recipient of the Prize might be equally identified as being civil society and our very own APC (or at least some of the originating partners) as other more well known individuals and agencies. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Mawaki Chango [mailto:kichango at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 7:20 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet I would think the humanist idea of the prize by Nobel was aimed at acknowledging human agency for betterment of human conditions, peace among nations, etc. The internet did not create itself; people created it. The internet does nothing, humans connected through it do (and yes, there is a lot of negativity taking place among some of those people, too). The IPCC example is not unique: it is the same concept as when the Prize is giving to teams of scientists (physicists, biologists, etc.) who collaborated to produce the outcome/output by which their merit is being recognized. So by that standard, it'd make perfect sense to advocate that the engineers and scientists who worked hard to bring about the internet be nolelized, but we must understand that advocating for the internet itself is comparable to nothing done before by the N. Committee --it'd be a quantum leap, so to speak! It might even be fundamentally against the philosophical foundations and views of the Nobels as I refer to above. So don't be surprised if that idea qualifies as nonsense in the eyes of some. A few weeks ago, in another discussion I suggested that we may try and offer a definition for the internet (in the context of social action). Some may say it is the people connected, some other the infrastructure (both illustrated in this discussion) yet some others the protocol stack (just bare specifications), etc. So this is not a given, and as I said, there are people on the internet saying and doing very nasty things too, including against fraternity among nations. Down the proposed path, next thing you might hear is that, like the King, the Internet has two bodies... Mawaki On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Craig Simon wrote: Hello All, I strongly agree with Jeanette. The "Internet" does not merit a Nobel Prize. It would be a shame to award it to some incorporeal entity in light of the many deserving individuals and agencies who have made great sacrifices in the service of peace and human liberty, and whose cause could be immediately advanced by the Nobel Committee's recognition. Craig Simon On 9/16/2010 8:02 AM, Brett Solomon wrote: Hi, Good discussion! If you look at the manifesto put forward by the proposers (internetforpeace.org ) it's pretty clear that the award is not for the infrastructure or the person, but for the global web of users: *We have finally realized that the Internet* is much more than a network of computers. It is an endless web of people. Men and women from every corner of the globe are connecting to one another, thanks to the biggest social interface ever known to humanity. Digital culture has laid the foundations for a new kind of society. And this society is advancing dialogue, debate and consensus through communication. Because democracy has always flourished where there is openness, acceptance, discussion and participation. And contact with others has always been the most effective antidote against hatred and conflict. That's why the Internet is a tool for peace. That's why anyone who uses it can sow the seeds of non-violence. And that's why the next *Nobel Peace Prize should go to the Net. A Nobel for each and every one of us.* I understand that people who would then receive the award would be the 'founders' of the internet including Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee and a few others on 'our' behalf. On balance, I would argue that many of the key drivers of conflict have been weakened as a result of the internet. Whilst it is used for violent or aggressive purposes, the internet has contributed significantly to the 'fraternity between nations' (peace prize criteria), to create political stability, to protect and promote human rights and to allow for cross border relationships. I dont feel overly strongly about this, but it is certainly a discussion starter, and waves the flag for the power of the internet to achieve peace and understanding, and serves as a warning that an open internet is worth fighting for. Brett On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: Hi all, I realize I could have said a word more or two to explain why I don't support the nobel prize suggestion. One of the reasons has been brought up several times. The Internet is not a human being and therefore the wrong entity to receive this prize. The second reason is that the Internet is clearly collective achievement that can hardly be attributed to a single person. It would not be the first time that an individual gets honored for the achievements of a group of people. However, I don't understand why we would support such a practice. I apologize for my blunt statement last night. I probably thought somebody should better say no to this idea before it has a chance to catch on. jeanette On 16.09.2010 10:41, Avri Doria wrote: hi, I initially read it that way and though that Internet related sciences might be an interesting category. Not sure what the right name for the category would be. then i realized that this is probably not what the original sender meant. so I thought of the Internet in its role of bringing people together and fostering community and making the world much smaller and enabling an access to knowledge that was unthinkable for most of world history. I was not sure that this was enough to merit a Nobel prize yet because there was still so much to do and still so may warts on the Internet that needed to be fixed. but Obama got the prize for peace making before he had done anything, so I figured that maybe the Internet and the multitude of people who invested their lives into building this thing we all depend on (whether we curse it out or bless it), deserved it more than he did at the time. but i was still not convinced. then i saw the messages of this list and got very afraid of having an opinion on the topic. so please forget i said anything. a. On 16 Sep 2010, at 12:29, shaila mistry wrote: Hi all I saw it very differently. I saw the Internet as anothe category. Such as literature and science. Etc. In this context the Nobel prize would still be given to an individual. For their exceptional contributions in the field. In a skeptical note , when I look at some tecie From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at )>; To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >; parminder>; Subject: Re: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet Sent: Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:49:49 AM May I endorse the thoughts of Parminder, I do not see what can really be gained by the nobel prize for the internet, different from giving it to UNHCR, AI etc to point out their good work as a model for humanity and support their concerns. Wolfgang Benedek Am 16.09.10 10:17 schrieb "parminder" unter>: I am sorry, but I hate to give human status to any artifact.... even the Internet... And Nobel prize is for human beings, maybe the best among them or whatever..... Next we may hear is that 'the Internet has rights'..... not at all going in good directions if you ask me :) (At a recent conf i was given this T shirt - dont think what the Internet can do you you - think what you can do to the Internet -- this kind of expressions almost scare me, and make me feel belittled as a human being in front of a 'system'... Well if we are insistent on going down that path then lets give noble prize to the 'system' instead, the all powerful one) parmindr On Thursday 16 September 2010 01:26 PM, Fiorello Cortiana wrote: We have to be pragmatic, the Nobel Prize to the net could be useful to recognize it as a commons, the wider public space in the human history, not a new infrastructure after telegraph, telephon, radio, television and PC. This is why we need an extension of the rights in a new way: multilevel and multistakeholder. I know what I say under Berlusconi's Government the freedom of expression on the net is in peril. With Stefano Rodotà and many other we gathered 400.000 signatures under an appeal against an awful proposal of law and this time we won. Ready to the next one :) Fiorello -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca ] Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 9.30 A: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Jeanette Hofmann Cc: Shahzad Ahmad Oggetto: Re: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet I of course agree with Jean, although perhaps I would not phrase it as bluntly :) --c.a. On 09/15/2010 07:20 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: I think this is a real rubbish idea and I am very much against sending any message to that effect. jeanette On 15.09.2010 16:05, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the support for the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing session or in regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if IGF sends a strong message out on this. Best wishes and regards Shahzad ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Brett Solomon Executive Director Access accessnow.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 rui.veras at gmail.com Thu Sep 16 11:22:12 2010 From: rui.veras at gmail.com (Rui Veras) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:22:12 +0200 Subject: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If it wasn't for the Internet we could not have this discussion and share ideas while in every corner of the planet. The Nobel is not for the Internet, nor for a single individual, but for each and every internet user, hence not for any individual or inventor. Instead it aims to award the potential that humanity has a whole when it can communicate, in a babel like fashion. I hope it wins. On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I think emphasizing the collective nature (co-creation) of the Internet > is rather a good thing. > > Also as Mawaki says demonstrating that things are created by people is also > a good thing. > > And finally emphasizing (as one would hope) the developmental and > distributive (information and capacity), emergency response and peace > building impacts and opportunities of the Internet would overall be a good > thing. If nothing else it would point out for those who might need it to be > pointed out, that the Internet is not just about making billions in the stockmarket > or wherever. > > It should also be pointed out that according to some reputable sources > http://www.city.ac.uk/whatson/2009/10_oct/291009_Peter_Willetts.html the > actual recipient of the Prize might be equally identified as being civil > society and our very own APC (or at least some of the originating partners) > as other more well known individuals and agencies. > ** > Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Mawaki Chango [mailto:kichango at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 16, 2010 7:20 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* Re: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet > > > I would think the humanist idea of the prize by Nobel was aimed at > acknowledging human agency for betterment of human conditions, peace among > nations, etc. The internet did not create itself; people created it. The > internet does nothing, humans connected through it do (and yes, there is a > lot of negativity taking place among some of those people, too). The IPCC > example is not unique: it is the same concept as when the Prize is giving to > teams of scientists (physicists, biologists, etc.) who collaborated to > produce the outcome/output by which their merit is being recognized. > > So by that standard, it'd make perfect sense to advocate that the engineers > and scientists who worked hard to bring about the internet be nolelized, but > we must understand that advocating for the internet itself is comparable to > nothing done before by the N. Committee --it'd be a quantum leap, so to > speak! It might even be fundamentally against the philosophical foundations > and views of the Nobels as I refer to above. So don't be surprised if that > idea qualifies as nonsense in the eyes of some. > > A few weeks ago, in another discussion I suggested that we may try and > offer a definition for the internet (in the context of social action). Some > may say it is the people connected, some other the infrastructure (both > illustrated in this discussion) yet some others the protocol stack (just > bare specifications), etc. So this is not a given, and as I said, there are > people on the internet saying and doing very nasty things too, including > against fraternity among nations. > > Down the proposed path, next thing you might hear is that, like the King, > the Internet has two bodies... > > Mawaki > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Craig Simon wrote: > >> Hello All, >> >> I strongly agree with Jeanette. The "Internet" does not merit a Nobel >> Prize. It would be a shame to award it to some incorporeal entity in light >> of the many deserving individuals and agencies who have made great >> sacrifices in the service of peace and human liberty, and whose cause could >> be immediately advanced by the Nobel Committee's recognition. >> >> Craig Simon >> >> >> On 9/16/2010 8:02 AM, Brett Solomon wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Good discussion! >>> >>> If you look at the manifesto put forward by the proposers >>> (internetforpeace.org ) it's pretty clear >>> >>> that the award is not for the infrastructure or the person, but for the >>> global web of users: >>> >>> *We have finally realized that the Internet* is much more than a network >>> of computers. It is an endless web of people. Men and women from every >>> corner of the globe are connecting to one another, thanks to the biggest >>> social interface ever known to humanity. >>> Digital culture has laid the foundations for a new kind of society. And >>> this society is advancing dialogue, debate and consensus through >>> communication. Because democracy has always flourished where there is >>> openness, acceptance, discussion and participation. And contact with >>> others has always been the most effective antidote against hatred and >>> conflict. That's why the Internet is a tool for peace. That's why anyone >>> who uses it can sow the seeds of non-violence. And that's why the next >>> *Nobel Peace Prize should go to the Net. A Nobel for each and every one >>> of us.* >>> >>> I understand that people who would then receive the award would be the >>> 'founders' of the internet including Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee and a >>> few others on 'our' behalf. >>> >>> On balance, I would argue that many of the key drivers of conflict have >>> been weakened as a result of the internet. Whilst it is used for violent >>> or aggressive purposes, the internet has contributed significantly to >>> the 'fraternity between nations' (peace prize criteria), to create >>> political stability, to protect and promote human rights and to allow >>> for cross border relationships. >>> >>> I dont feel overly strongly about this, but it is certainly a discussion >>> starter, and waves the flag for the power of the internet to achieve >>> peace and understanding, and serves as a warning that an open internet >>> is worth fighting for. >>> >>> Brett >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Jeanette Hofmann >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I realize I could have said a word more or two to explain why I >>> don't support the nobel prize suggestion. One of the reasons has >>> been brought up several times. The Internet is not a human being and >>> therefore the wrong entity to receive this prize. The second reason >>> is that the Internet is clearly collective achievement that can >>> hardly be attributed to a single person. It would not be the first >>> time that an individual gets honored for the achievements of a group >>> of people. However, I don't understand why we would support such a >>> practice. >>> >>> I apologize for my blunt statement last night. I probably thought >>> somebody should better say no to this idea before it has a chance to >>> catch on. >>> >>> jeanette >>> >>> >>> On 16.09.2010 10:41, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> hi, >>> >>> I initially read it that way and though that Internet related >>> sciences might be an interesting category. Not sure what the >>> right name for the category would be. >>> >>> then i realized that this is probably not what the original >>> sender meant. >>> >>> so I thought of the Internet in its role of bringing people >>> together and fostering community and making the world much >>> smaller and enabling an access to knowledge that was unthinkable >>> for most of world history. I was not sure that this was enough >>> to merit a Nobel prize yet because there was still so much to do >>> and still so may warts on the Internet that needed to be fixed. >>> but Obama got the prize for peace making before he had done >>> anything, so I figured that maybe the Internet and the multitude >>> of people who invested their lives into building this thing we >>> all depend on (whether we curse it out or bless it), deserved it >>> more than he did at the time. but i was still not convinced. >>> >>> then i saw the messages of this list and got very afraid of >>> having an opinion on the topic. >>> >>> so please forget i said anything. >>> >>> a. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 16 Sep 2010, at 12:29, shaila mistry wrote: >>> >>> Hi all >>> I saw it very differently. I saw the Internet as anothe >>> category. Such as literature and science. Etc. In this >>> context the Nobel prize would still be given to an >>> individual. For their exceptional contributions in the field. >>> >>> In a skeptical note , when I look at some tecie >>> >>> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at >>> )< >>> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at >>> >; >>> >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >> >; >>> parminder>> >; >>> >>> Subject: Re: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet >>> Sent: Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:49:49 AM >>> >>> May I endorse the thoughts of Parminder, I do not see what >>> can really be gained by the nobel prize for the internet, >>> different from giving it to UNHCR, AI etc to point out their >>> good work as a model for humanity and support their concerns. >>> >>> Wolfgang Benedek >>> >>> >>> Am 16.09.10 10:17 schrieb "parminder" >>> unter>> >: >>> >>> >>> I am sorry, but I hate to give human status to any >>> artifact.... even the Internet... And Nobel prize is for >>> human beings, maybe the best among them or whatever..... >>> Next we may hear is that 'the Internet has rights'..... not >>> at all going in good directions if you ask me :) >>> >>> (At a recent conf i was given this T shirt - dont think what >>> the Internet can do you you - think what you can do to the >>> Internet -- this kind of expressions almost scare me, and >>> make me feel belittled as a human being in front of a >>> 'system'... Well if we are insistent on going down that path >>> then lets give noble prize to the 'system' instead, the all >>> powerful one) >>> >>> parmindr >>> >>> On Thursday 16 September 2010 01:26 PM, Fiorello Cortiana >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> We have to be pragmatic, the Nobel Prize to the net could be >>> useful to >>> recognize it as a commons, the wider public space in the >>> human history, not >>> a new infrastructure after telegraph, telephon, radio, >>> television and PC. This is why we need an extension of the >>> rights in >>> a new way: multilevel and multistakeholder. I know what I >>> say under >>> Berlusconi's Government the freedom of expression on the >>> net is in peril. >>> With Stefano Rodotà and many other we gathered 400.000 >>> signatures under an >>> appeal against an awful proposal of law and this time we >>> won. Ready to the next one :) >>> >>> Fiorello >>> >>> -----Messaggio originale----- >>> Da: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca >>> ] >>> Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 9.30 >>> A: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> ; Jeanette Hofmann >>> >>> Cc: Shahzad Ahmad >>> Oggetto: Re: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet >>> >>> I of course agree with Jean, although perhaps I would not >>> phrase it as bluntly :) >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 09/15/2010 07:20 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I think this is a real rubbish idea and I am very much >>> against sending >>> any message to that effect. >>> jeanette >>> >>> On 15.09.2010 16:05, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the >>> support >>> for the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing >>> session or >>> in regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if >>> IGF sends >>> a strong message out on this. >>> >>> Best wishes and regards >>> >>> Shahzad >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Brett Solomon >>> Executive Director >>> Access >>> accessnow.org >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- *Rui Sequeira Veras* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Thu Sep 16 11:30:43 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:30:43 +0100 Subject: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All I fully agree that you can't award a prize to a "thing"/ or "system"/ "media". I mean, why then has nobody awarded a prize to the telephone, the fax machine? Or to go wider, why has there never been a prize for refrigeration, which has enabled the preservation of food? Or paved roads that have enabled progress to reach remote areas. or wall paint, disk breaks, intercontinental flights? At most, following the Time Magazine example of making "You" the "Person of the "Year", a prize could be awarded to all "Those who contributed to make the internet an instrument for social upliftment and progress" - or something similar, but not merely to ALL who contributed, because many contributed purely with a view to making money out of the process. My ether two cents. On 16 September 2010 15:44, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I think emphasizing the collective nature (co-creation) of the Internet > is rather a good thing. > > Also as Mawaki says demonstrating that things are created by people is also > a good thing. > > And finally emphasizing (as one would hope) the developmental and > distributive (information and capacity), emergency response and peace > building impacts and opportunities of the Internet would overall be a good > thing. If nothing else it would point out for those who might need it to be > pointed out, that the Internet is not just about making billions in the stockmarket > or wherever. > > It should also be pointed out that according to some reputable sources > http://www.city.ac.uk/whatson/2009/10_oct/291009_Peter_Willetts.html the > actual recipient of the Prize might be equally identified as being civil > society and our very own APC (or at least some of the originating partners) > as other more well known individuals and agencies. > ** > Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Mawaki Chango [mailto:kichango at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 16, 2010 7:20 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* Re: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet > > > I would think the humanist idea of the prize by Nobel was aimed at > acknowledging human agency for betterment of human conditions, peace among > nations, etc. The internet did not create itself; people created it. The > internet does nothing, humans connected through it do (and yes, there is a > lot of negativity taking place among some of those people, too). The IPCC > example is not unique: it is the same concept as when the Prize is giving to > teams of scientists (physicists, biologists, etc.) who collaborated to > produce the outcome/output by which their merit is being recognized. > > So by that standard, it'd make perfect sense to advocate that the engineers > and scientists who worked hard to bring about the internet be nolelized, but > we must understand that advocating for the internet itself is comparable to > nothing done before by the N. Committee --it'd be a quantum leap, so to > speak! It might even be fundamentally against the philosophical foundations > and views of the Nobels as I refer to above. So don't be surprised if that > idea qualifies as nonsense in the eyes of some. > > A few weeks ago, in another discussion I suggested that we may try and > offer a definition for the internet (in the context of social action). Some > may say it is the people connected, some other the infrastructure (both > illustrated in this discussion) yet some others the protocol stack (just > bare specifications), etc. So this is not a given, and as I said, there are > people on the internet saying and doing very nasty things too, including > against fraternity among nations. > > Down the proposed path, next thing you might hear is that, like the King, > the Internet has two bodies... > > Mawaki > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Craig Simon wrote: > >> Hello All, >> >> I strongly agree with Jeanette. The "Internet" does not merit a Nobel >> Prize. It would be a shame to award it to some incorporeal entity in light >> of the many deserving individuals and agencies who have made great >> sacrifices in the service of peace and human liberty, and whose cause could >> be immediately advanced by the Nobel Committee's recognition. >> >> Craig Simon >> >> >> On 9/16/2010 8:02 AM, Brett Solomon wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Good discussion! >>> >>> If you look at the manifesto put forward by the proposers >>> (internetforpeace.org ) it's pretty clear >>> >>> that the award is not for the infrastructure or the person, but for the >>> global web of users: >>> >>> *We have finally realized that the Internet* is much more than a network >>> of computers. It is an endless web of people. Men and women from every >>> corner of the globe are connecting to one another, thanks to the biggest >>> social interface ever known to humanity. >>> Digital culture has laid the foundations for a new kind of society. And >>> this society is advancing dialogue, debate and consensus through >>> communication. Because democracy has always flourished where there is >>> openness, acceptance, discussion and participation. And contact with >>> others has always been the most effective antidote against hatred and >>> conflict. That's why the Internet is a tool for peace. That's why anyone >>> who uses it can sow the seeds of non-violence. And that's why the next >>> *Nobel Peace Prize should go to the Net. A Nobel for each and every one >>> of us.* >>> >>> I understand that people who would then receive the award would be the >>> 'founders' of the internet including Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee and a >>> few others on 'our' behalf. >>> >>> On balance, I would argue that many of the key drivers of conflict have >>> been weakened as a result of the internet. Whilst it is used for violent >>> or aggressive purposes, the internet has contributed significantly to >>> the 'fraternity between nations' (peace prize criteria), to create >>> political stability, to protect and promote human rights and to allow >>> for cross border relationships. >>> >>> I dont feel overly strongly about this, but it is certainly a discussion >>> starter, and waves the flag for the power of the internet to achieve >>> peace and understanding, and serves as a warning that an open internet >>> is worth fighting for. >>> >>> Brett >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Jeanette Hofmann >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I realize I could have said a word more or two to explain why I >>> don't support the nobel prize suggestion. One of the reasons has >>> been brought up several times. The Internet is not a human being and >>> therefore the wrong entity to receive this prize. The second reason >>> is that the Internet is clearly collective achievement that can >>> hardly be attributed to a single person. It would not be the first >>> time that an individual gets honored for the achievements of a group >>> of people. However, I don't understand why we would support such a >>> practice. >>> >>> I apologize for my blunt statement last night. I probably thought >>> somebody should better say no to this idea before it has a chance to >>> catch on. >>> >>> jeanette >>> >>> >>> On 16.09.2010 10:41, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> hi, >>> >>> I initially read it that way and though that Internet related >>> sciences might be an interesting category. Not sure what the >>> right name for the category would be. >>> >>> then i realized that this is probably not what the original >>> sender meant. >>> >>> so I thought of the Internet in its role of bringing people >>> together and fostering community and making the world much >>> smaller and enabling an access to knowledge that was unthinkable >>> for most of world history. I was not sure that this was enough >>> to merit a Nobel prize yet because there was still so much to do >>> and still so may warts on the Internet that needed to be fixed. >>> but Obama got the prize for peace making before he had done >>> anything, so I figured that maybe the Internet and the multitude >>> of people who invested their lives into building this thing we >>> all depend on (whether we curse it out or bless it), deserved it >>> more than he did at the time. but i was still not convinced. >>> >>> then i saw the messages of this list and got very afraid of >>> having an opinion on the topic. >>> >>> so please forget i said anything. >>> >>> a. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 16 Sep 2010, at 12:29, shaila mistry wrote: >>> >>> Hi all >>> I saw it very differently. I saw the Internet as anothe >>> category. Such as literature and science. Etc. In this >>> context the Nobel prize would still be given to an >>> individual. For their exceptional contributions in the field. >>> >>> In a skeptical note , when I look at some tecie >>> >>> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at >>> )< >>> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at >>> >; >>> >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >> >; >>> parminder>> >; >>> >>> Subject: Re: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet >>> Sent: Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:49:49 AM >>> >>> May I endorse the thoughts of Parminder, I do not see what >>> can really be gained by the nobel prize for the internet, >>> different from giving it to UNHCR, AI etc to point out their >>> good work as a model for humanity and support their concerns. >>> >>> Wolfgang Benedek >>> >>> >>> Am 16.09.10 10:17 schrieb "parminder" >>> unter>> >: >>> >>> >>> I am sorry, but I hate to give human status to any >>> artifact.... even the Internet... And Nobel prize is for >>> human beings, maybe the best among them or whatever..... >>> Next we may hear is that 'the Internet has rights'..... not >>> at all going in good directions if you ask me :) >>> >>> (At a recent conf i was given this T shirt - dont think what >>> the Internet can do you you - think what you can do to the >>> Internet -- this kind of expressions almost scare me, and >>> make me feel belittled as a human being in front of a >>> 'system'... Well if we are insistent on going down that path >>> then lets give noble prize to the 'system' instead, the all >>> powerful one) >>> >>> parmindr >>> >>> On Thursday 16 September 2010 01:26 PM, Fiorello Cortiana >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> We have to be pragmatic, the Nobel Prize to the net could be >>> useful to >>> recognize it as a commons, the wider public space in the >>> human history, not >>> a new infrastructure after telegraph, telephon, radio, >>> television and PC. This is why we need an extension of the >>> rights in >>> a new way: multilevel and multistakeholder. I know what I >>> say under >>> Berlusconi's Government the freedom of expression on the >>> net is in peril. >>> With Stefano Rodotà and many other we gathered 400.000 >>> signatures under an >>> appeal against an awful proposal of law and this time we >>> won. Ready to the next one :) >>> >>> Fiorello >>> >>> -----Messaggio originale----- >>> Da: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca >>> ] >>> Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 9.30 >>> A: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> ; Jeanette Hofmann >>> >>> Cc: Shahzad Ahmad >>> Oggetto: Re: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet >>> >>> I of course agree with Jean, although perhaps I would not >>> phrase it as bluntly :) >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 09/15/2010 07:20 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I think this is a real rubbish idea and I am very much >>> against sending >>> any message to that effect. >>> jeanette >>> >>> On 15.09.2010 16:05, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the >>> support >>> for the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing >>> session or >>> in regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if >>> IGF sends >>> a strong message out on this. >>> >>> Best wishes and regards >>> >>> Shahzad >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Brett Solomon >>> Executive Director >>> Access >>> accessnow.org >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- _________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ àáâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Sep 16 16:40:13 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 22:40:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] More multilingual IGF? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100916223253.05d33438@jefsey.com> At 14:41 16/09/2010, Izumi AIZU wrote: >In the workshop this morning on Innovative Internet Governance Ideas >and Approaches, I came to an idea and spoke it - > >Why don't we try to make some of the IGF sessions for the next round >more "multi-lingual"? > >This may increase the sense of ownership for many non-English speaking >people and also create more level playing field. Real main session can still >remain in English, and also working language as well. > >Just a suggestion. Dear Izumi, I also call your attention on two points : - each language and its associated culture better helps some forms of reasoning. The most typical case is Aymara [Inca language] which supports a trivalent logic (and other ways to consider evidence and time). But this is true of English (induction) or French (metaduction). This is important in diktyology (science of networks) as it influences multicultural consensus formation and introduces more easily the necessary multi-consensus concept, principles and processes (consensus over a cross-understanding and cross-interoperability of different sub-consensuses). - more an more we will be confronted to mecalanguages, i.e. your own natural language as spoken/understood by machines. This will most probably have an impact on languages, cultures, and international relations comparable to the introduction of dictionaries five centuries ago. For these two reasons, a first hand experience of network related issues in a multilingual environment can only help understanding the multilingual related issues of the governance. Please note that "multilingualisation" (each language being treated equal to others) is a very different issue with many practical/operational details differing from "internationalization" which actually is speaking an Internationalized English in different "localized" dialects. Multilingualization allows different forms of reasoning to coexist, by nature internationalization does not. jfc I copy the MAAYA mailing list which should be a strong ally to consider multilingualising the IGF. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Sep 16 23:55:27 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 23:55:27 -0400 Subject: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet In-Reply-To: <001b01cb557e$ed8e0920$c8aa1b60$@net> References: <4C91D288.1030408@itforchange.net> ,<001b01cb557e$ed8e0920$c8aa1b60$@net> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956AD036@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> My 2 cents - since this was brought up and my sister is one of the ~2000 IPCC scientists/co-winners. In the family we brag and say she s a co-winner of the Nobel. Others not so charitable - or dubious on climate - are rather dismissive of the significance of Diane having won 1/4000th of a Nobel. So for Internet - prize goes to...Kahn/Cerf for tcp/ip? Kleinrock because he took darpa $ and got machines talking to each other...or Taylor for setting up the darpa program...or Ruina for leading darpa..and staying out of way of Licklider etc way...or the next couple hundred key contributors....all of which would leave out sir berners-lee and the web...or instead all of us early or late users win 1/2billionth of a nobel? So I'm not sure what 'the Internet' winning would mean. And if it meant something specific, in case of Internet it would likely just lead to arguments about whether that one thing is really a main thing. Now, a new nobel prize category, for Internet, that could be more interesting and meaningful, since Internet is not a one-off thing, and we already have a backlog of a variety of deserving winners....who can squabble and lobby and scheme just like everyone else in other categories 'shocked, shocked' - that their lobbying paid off and they won. Lee PS: Re those lecturers and early Internet contributors who insist that the connection between LOTs of US DOD $ funding research on packet networks....for decades and decades before things got to commercial scale...and the building of a net capable of surviving nuclear war was just a 'myth' or coincidence: Yeah right. US government does that kind of long-range planning routinely. Sure whatever. Pay no attention to what the (D) in DARPA stands for. Absolutely values and ethos and contributions from civil society and from 60s counter-culture can be seen from beginning - in a net coincidentally designed by the advanced projects arm of the department of d. which enlisted thousands of 'civil society' types very early on, around world. And told them to keep their head down and figure better how to pass packets. Beginning in earnest roughly...around the time of the Cuban missile crisis. But pay no attention, that is just another coincidence and whole thing has always been about peaceful passing of packets honest. Give that packet a prize. ________________________________________ From: Shahzad Ahmad [shahzad at bytesforall.net] Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 5:09 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet May be in the same way as it was given to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change… http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/ The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change" Best S From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:50 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Subject: Re: R: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet May I endorse the thoughts of Parminder, I do not see what can really be gained by the nobel prize for the internet, different from giving it to UNHCR, AI etc to point out their good work as a model for humanity and support their concerns. Wolfgang Benedek Am 16.09.10 10:17 schrieb "parminder" unter : I am sorry, but I hate to give human status to any artifact.... even the Internet... And Nobel prize is for human beings, maybe the best among them or whatever..... Next we may hear is that 'the Internet has rights'..... not at all going in good directions if you ask me :) (At a recent conf i was given this T shirt - dont think what the Internet can do you you - think what you can do to the Internet -- this kind of expressions almost scare me, and make me feel belittled as a human being in front of a 'system'... Well if we are insistent on going down that path then lets give noble prize to the 'system' instead, the all powerful one) parmindr On Thursday 16 September 2010 01:26 PM, Fiorello Cortiana wrote: We have to be pragmatic, the Nobel Prize to the net could be useful to recognize it as a commons, the wider public space in the human history, not a new infrastructure after telegraph, telephon, radio, television and PC. This is why we need an extension of the rights in a new way: multilevel and multistakeholder. I know what I say under Berlusconi's Government the freedom of expression on the net is in peril. With Stefano Rodotà and many other we gathered 400.000 signatures under an appeal against an awful proposal of law and this time we won. Ready to the next one :) Fiorello -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] Inviato: giovedì 16 settembre 2010 9.30 A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann Cc: Shahzad Ahmad Oggetto: Re: [governance] Nobel Prize for The Internet I of course agree with Jean, although perhaps I would not phrase it as bluntly :) --c.a. On 09/15/2010 07:20 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: I think this is a real rubbish idea and I am very much against sending any message to that effect. jeanette On 15.09.2010 16:05, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: I suggest that one of CS representative strongly raise the support for the Nobel Prize for the Internet either in the closing session or in regular interventions in the plenary. It will be good if IGF sends a strong message out on this. Best wishes and regards Shahzad ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 16 23:59:59 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 05:59:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] FYI References: <7.0.1.0.2.20100916223253.05d33438@jefsey.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07123@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/16/warning-sounded-over-upcoming-u-n-general-assembly-deliberations-on-internet-governance/ w ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Sep 17 00:19:12 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 07:19:12 +0300 Subject: [governance] FYI In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07123@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20100916223253.05d33438@jefsey.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07123@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfgang On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:59 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/16/warning-sounded-over-upcoming-u-n-general-assembly-deliberations-on-internet-governance/ I'm impressed by the breadth of your reading, didn't know you follow the musings of the USian far right. I love DC. Apparently people can still get paid to recycle garbage from 2003. Albeit with the added twist that it's all Obama's fault for withdrawing American "protection" of ICANN, and hence the Internet. Coming next, Sarah's Palin's tweets on IG: Foreigners meeting in Vilnius (in Lithuania—a country, who knew?) to implement Obama give-away of our Internet to UN overlords. Send money to Tea Party now before 2 late! 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 kichango at gmail.com Fri Sep 17 01:54:27 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 01:54:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] FYI In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20100916223253.05d33438@jefsey.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07123@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: ... and by the way, didn't ahmadinejad fund the most vocal of those participants against US/icann? (and why do you guys think he gave an interview the other day to one of those liberal media, msnbc, if not to divert attention from that scheme!) now you can send twice the amount you wanted to TP! On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 12:19 AM, William Drake < william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: > Wolfgang > > On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:59 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > > > > > http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/16/warning-sounded-over-upcoming-u-n-general-assembly-deliberations-on-internet-governance/ > > I'm impressed by the breadth of your reading, didn't know you follow the > musings of the USian far right. > > I love DC. Apparently people can still get paid to recycle garbage from > 2003. Albeit with the added twist that it's all Obama's fault for > withdrawing American "protection" of ICANN, and hence the Internet. Coming > next, Sarah's Palin's tweets on IG: Foreigners meeting in Vilnius (in > Lithuania—a country, who knew?) to implement Obama give-away of our Internet > to UN overlords. Send money to Tea Party now before 2 late! > > 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 yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Fri Sep 17 04:22:10 2010 From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?Windows-1252?B?WXJq9iBM5G5zaXB1cm8=?=) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:22:10 +0300 Subject: [governance] Webcast of the Finnish Internet Forum on Monday, September 20 Message-ID: Dear all, The first IGF Finland – Finnish Internet Forum – will take place on Monday and Tuesday, September 20-21, in Helsinki. Monday sessions will be conducted in English and webcasted at http://www.internetforum.fi/webcast The main organizers of the Finnish Internet Forum are the Committee for the Future and the Information Society Group of the Parliament, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Transport and Communications, ISOC Finland and The Finnish Information Society Development Centre (TIEKE). The programme of the forum can be found at http://www.internetforum.fi/programme Please note: Timings in Helsinki time, which is GMT+3 Best regards, Yrjö Länsipuro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Sep 17 06:52:45 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 06:52:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] An account of the CIR main session at IGF Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F944@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> For those of you who were not in Vilnius, or who missed it: http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/9/16/4632027.html Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Sep 17 07:19:40 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:19:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] An account of the CIR main session at IGF In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F944@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073968F944@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi Milton, On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > For those of you who were not in Vilnius, or who missed it: > > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/9/16/4632027.html Only wrong on two points! I've just replied to your post on your site. In addition, I've mentioned you in a somewhat related CircleID post, which is being moderated now, but should be up soon. If not on the main page, you should be able to find it here eventually: http://www.circleid.com/members/1420/ Enjoy your lunch! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Fri Sep 17 07:26:41 2010 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:26:41 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] FYI In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07123@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20100916223253.05d33438@jefsey.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07123@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <388127.78133.qm@web25903.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Hi, After reading the article, I might say that it would be sad if the Internet Governance process comes to loose its multistakeholderism and inclusiveness. NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul Tel : +257 79 981459 ________________________________ De : "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; info at hoferichter.eu Envoyé le : Ven 17 septembre 2010, 6h 59min 59s Objet : [governance] FYI http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/16/warning-sounded-over-upcoming-u-n-general-assembly-deliberations-on-internet-governance/ w ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 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 Sep 17 07:39:26 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:39:26 +0300 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: Call for volunteers for NomCom Message-ID: I have heard that the CSTD will be likely to make use of any nominations that we might make for civil society participants in its multi-stakeholder working group on improvements to the IGF. This being so, we will need to start the process of nominate members for that group. We also have to begin the process of nominating members for the new MAG. The deadline, particularly for the CSTD, is very tight: the working group is to be established by the end of next month. So we have to start the ball rolling now. The IGC makes such nominations using a randomly-selected nominating committee (NomCom). Our charter requires that "Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating committee (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection" - in this case, it is not possible, due to lack of time. Thus, I am calling for nominations to serve on the NomCom now, and propose to make a call for nominations for the CSTD working group and MAG, as soon as we have the requisite 25 nominations for the NomCom. I would also like to suggest that the same NomCom should select nominees both for the CSTD working group and for the MAG. Please note that the Charter does not strictly allow for this. So, if anybody objects, we will follow the letter of the Charter and appoint two NomComs. Note that if you nominate yourself for the NomCom, you have (statistically) only a one in five chance of actually being selected to serve on that committee. Please send your self-nominations to the list, or (in order to reduce unwanted list traffic), to myself and Ginger. Thank you! -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 Fri Sep 17 10:24:34 2010 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 23:24:34 +0900 Subject: [governance] Statement of youth coalition on Internet Governance Message-ID: Hello Everyone, I want to share with all members of IGC the statement made on behalf of Youth Coalition on Internet Governance during the Taking stock session. you can find more information on our blog ycig.org Regards Rafik *STATEMENT OF THE DYNAMIC YOUTH COALITION IGF 2010* This statement has been created by members of the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance. We appreciate the Internet as a space where young people are positively developing and are pleased that many more young people are participating in the IGF this year to share our inputs and opinions on how the Internet should be governed. We urge the UN to give the new five year term for this unique opportunity to share ideas and to collaborate on action in this multi-stakeholder approach. While noting that progress has been made towards the inclusion of young people in this forum, there remains a recurring problem where in many sessions the voices of children, young people and young adults have not always been invited or listened to. It is a great shame that sessions discuss youth issues solely from adult points of view; instead of youth discussing the future of the Internet as equal stakeholders with all other participants.We continue to urge the IGF to enhance youth participation at all levels with the following in mind. *Firstly*, young people have a unique experience of the net often as early adopters of new technologies. Hence, we have first hand information and knowledge on what needs to be done to make the Internet a better place, for all of us. Already, youth around the world are taking part in the process of Internet Governance. For example, the YouthIGF project in the UK and the youth IGF camp in Hong Kong have contributed key insights and action points on the issues of censorship, privacy and the digital divide. Their statements, statements from young people at EuroDig 2010, and from the Youth Dynamic Coalition meeting at Sharm El Sheik, which we encourage you to read about at http://www.ycig.org, contain considerable depth, which has been lacking from dialogues where youth voices are absent, or where adults have not taken the time to listen. *Secondly*, youth reinforce the multi-stakeholder approach of the IGF by bringing in new ideas and skills. In fact, in many cases young people are the experts. We can help improve the IGF. After all, we are the decision makers, entrepreneurs of the future, not just in the future. We are citizens of the net today. *Thirdly*, we bring energy and skills to resolve core Internet governance challenges. We are more than willing to collaborate with workshop leaders and IGF stakeholders to support a greater diversity of voices to be involved. Youth need to be seen as stakeholders and as an asset, not as a problem. We believe that the Internet Governance dialogue is made richer by focusing on the opportunities the Internet presents for the youth and addressing the times when they are not realized, rather than using fear-based arguments to restrict Internet freedoms. It is better to focus on fighting ignorance and building digital literacy than applying ‘safety’ strategies based on restriction. We have established a coalition not to compete with, or replace many youth groups who have come to play a role in the regional and International IGF process over recent years. Instead, we want to bring together the messages from many different groups. There is not a single voice of youth, but there are many important youth perspectives on the Internet Governance debate. Let us not waste time talking about the youth but let the youth talk as rightful stakeholders in the Internet space. We could all benefit from the knowledge that the youth has. It is not enough that young people are simply showcased, allowed to express their concerns for a few minutes and then ignored – as we hope will not happen right now. All youth, children, young people and young adults, from all genders, backgrounds and cultures should already be discussing the Internet, instead of stakeholders only discussing the need for their participation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 17 11:26:25 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:26:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] My IGF closing session speech Message-ID: <98ABD6F6-A81C-4E33-9F24-2C911A07B251@ciroap.org> is here: http://www.igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-statement-for-civil-society-at-igf-2010s-closing-session -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Dixie at global-partners.co.uk Fri Sep 17 11:33:44 2010 From: Dixie at global-partners.co.uk (Dixie Hawtin) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:33:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] My IGF closing session speech In-Reply-To: <98ABD6F6-A81C-4E33-9F24-2C911A07B251@ciroap.org> References: <98ABD6F6-A81C-4E33-9F24-2C911A07B251@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C6F165195@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Well done Jeremy, I thought it was good. Dixie ________________________________________ From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: 17 September 2010 16:26 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] My IGF closing session speech is here: http://www.igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-statement-for-civil-society-at-igf-2010s-closing-session -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 17 11:49:57 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:49:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] My IGF closing session speech In-Reply-To: <98ABD6F6-A81C-4E33-9F24-2C911A07B251@ciroap.org> References: <98ABD6F6-A81C-4E33-9F24-2C911A07B251@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <307200.42656.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Jeremy Malcolm, that was and excellent oppertunity of attend the IGF sessions remotely, and at the final session, I heared and seen you live. It was a first time to see you, and it was a very good speach and representation of IGC. Wish you good luck. Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah ________________________________ From: Jeremy Malcolm To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Fri, 17 September, 2010 20:26:25 Subject: [governance] My IGF closing session speech is here: http://www.igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-statement-for-civil-society-at-igf-2010s-closing-session -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Sep 17 11:57:29 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:57:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] My IGF closing session speech In-Reply-To: <98ABD6F6-A81C-4E33-9F24-2C911A07B251@ciroap.org> References: <98ABD6F6-A81C-4E33-9F24-2C911A07B251@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4C938FE9.7060406@cafonso.ca> Thanks, Jeremy! --c.a. On 09/17/2010 12:26 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > is here: > > http://www.igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-statement-for-civil-society-at-igf-2010s-closing-session > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 17 14:16:34 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:16:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Formation of Regional IGF - IGF PAK Message-ID: <492593.68606.qm@web33001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Urdu Internet Society ==================   Ref: UIsoc-2K11/Lhe/0917-02   17th September 2010 To:     All members of the IGC Mailing List   Formation of Regional IGF – IGF PAK Dear All members of the IGC, Some words about Urdu Internet Society: My name is Imran Ahmed Shah (I am from Pakistan), beside other voluntarily global and local contributions and initiates, I also belongs to Urdu Internet Society (UISoc) as a Founder & Executive Member. (www.UISoc.org). Urdu Internet Society (UISoc) is a Social Community Network for the support of Global Urdu Internet Community. (Urdu is the most popular & spoken language of Asia and there are more than 60m Urdu Speaking People around the world and about 30% approx. out of them are linked with Internet). Urdu Internet Society provides support for ICT & Security Policies Development for the betterment of the Urdu related users and the Nation. We are also engaging work groups of the technical experts as support teams to facilitates users (members) to discuss  their problems, propose them solutions, and highlight their achievements as well as to conduct surveys and to publish statistical analysis + survey reports. We also help to coordinate with experts for policies development services. Recent Initiative about Global Information Security: Urdu Internet Society (UISoc) and Pakistan Information Security Association (PISA), has engaged 'International Information Systems Security Certification Consortium' (ISC)2 to conduct "Information Security Asia Conference 2011" in Pakistan. This will be the 1st International Information Security Conference in Pakistan. Urdu Internet Society fully support this important initiative and has offered its services as Organizing Partner of the Conference. One of the federal Ministries has principally agreed to become the Primary Partner to Organize and Host the event. We also have obtained support from Cabinet of Pakistan. IEEE, Pakistan also has confirmed their support for the event. We also have got meeting with the Protractors of the three big Universities and have obtained their support for our initiatives. Initiative about Regional IGF: With reference to IGF, with the context of Global & Regional Policies development and demand from the Public and Private Sectors, I was asked to form a regional IGF Working Group engaging Technical Experts, ISPs, IT users and companies, involving the representatives of Academia and Government Institutions. This regional IGF working group will have to provide the coordination for local community members and will provide the related contents and material in local language that is Urdu. We agreed to dedicate the website IGFPAK.com/org for this purpose. We also agree to invite representative of Public and Private Sector, non-resident Pakistan (Local community members living abroad) and Security & Anti-Cyber-Crimes Fighting Groups. It was my opinion that we should provide bilingual contents in Urdu & English and before announcing it, we should obtain the permission from IGF Secretariat. However, the consensus was very much necessary to-do so. I also informed my fellows about the IGC and told them to obtain opinion, if found IGC coordinator find it feasible. We decided to obtain the consultation from IGC Coordinator, and if they support than we could forward to IGF Secretariat. I was wondering for information to take the further steps and I contacted Ms Ginger Paque, (as she is the Coordinator of IGC) through email some days ago, for the same queries. She asked me to circulate my queries and request for support to IGC mailing list to obtain the opinion and guidance of the experts. Fortunately, today, during the 4th day session of IGF Session regarding “Asia Pacific Regional IGF”, Room-6, Remote Participation, Ms Ginger Paque encouraged me to submit my queries online for everyone. I followed her and submitted my queries, my request asking for support and guidance from IGC, IGF and other Working Groups. I was surprised when I heard that she was representing my queries and request (word by words) to the audience of the session and in the presence of Secretary-General for Internet Governance, Mr MARKUS KUMMER. During the two consequent sessions, in the same Room No. 6, participants discussed about the regional IGFs formation pre-requisites and/or review comments on it. Finally, Mr MARKUS KUMMER described that “They can say they are Pakistan or whatever IGF. And then all, collectively all the national and regional IGF initiatives say, if you want to be one of us, you have to be open, you have to be bottom/up, and you have to be multi-stakeholder. And if you fulfill these criteria, then we allow you collectively to call yourself IGF.”; Later on Mr MARKUS KUMMER also had defined the procedure and pre-requests for the formation of Regional IGF during his address in second last session that Regional IGF should be transparent and open for all comprising the multi-stakeholders. We are formulizing the pattern to organize the working group for IGF PAK, following the guide lines of the Secretary-General for Internet Governance, Mr MARKUS KUMMER. We are listing down current matters, which should be included for discussion at this platform. Regional website IGFPAK.com will provide the online presence of this working group and will host the related contents and meetings information in English & Urdu Languages. Request for Suggestions and Support from IGC members: You are requested to please guide us in this regard with your opinion, willingness of support, becoming the part of the working groups or highlight the important issues to include in the initiative with the regional and global prospective and Internet Governance aspects. Thanking you & Best Regards,   Best Regards,   Imran Ahmad Shah   Founder& Executive Member Urdu Internet Society [imran at uisoc.org] [+92-300-4130617]   ================================================================================= P.S.:Respected Dr Sarmad Hussain/ Mr Zahid Jamil/ Mr Fouad Bajwa and Mr Naveed ul Haq, we also need your support to join our hands for this important initiative and for a common goal and a collective achievement to strengthen Regional IGF, the IGF PAK. (as you all are at IGF from Pakistan, well before my entrance to this community network). We look forward to participating in collaborative efforts to organize local IGF Working Group in Pakistan. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter to IGC Regional IGF - IGF PAK.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 58800 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 14:35:10 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:35:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: Formation of Regional IGF - IGF PAK In-Reply-To: <1201352941-1284747592-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-444446331-@bda047.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> References: <492593.68606.qm@web33001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1201352941-1284747592-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-444446331-@bda047.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <329453.86140.qm@web33001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yes, Dear Zahid, it is registered for Not for Profit (Society) and list of members comprises on Local and Global Chapters and from the Community. Membership is opne for all, there is no limitations or there is no membership fee, so any one can be come its member. Thanks for your query. Imran Ahmed Shah 0300 4130617 ________________________________ From: Zahid Jamil To: Imran Ahmed Shah ; governance at lists.cpsr.org; sarmad.hussain at nu.edu.pk; sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk; fouadbajwa at gmail.com; Naveedul Haq Cc: Jeremy Malcolm ; Ginger Paque ; Imran UISoc Sent: Fri, 17 September, 2010 23:19:51 Subject: Re: Formation of Regional IGF - IGF PAK Dear Imran, Is the UISOC registered as a not for profit and who are its members? Best regards, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device ________________________________ From: Imran Ahmed Shah Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:16:34 -0700 (PDT) To: ; ; ; ; ; Naveedul Haq Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; Ginger Paque; Imran UISoc Subject: Formation of Regional IGF - IGF PAK Urdu Internet Society ==================   Ref: UIsoc-2K11/Lhe/0917-02   17th September 2010 To:     All members of the IGC Mailing List   Formation of Regional IGF – IGF PAK Dear All members of the IGC, Some words about Urdu Internet Society: My name is Imran Ahmed Shah (I am from Pakistan), beside other voluntarily global and local contributions and initiates, I also belongs to Urdu Internet Society (UISoc) as a Founder & Executive Member. (www.UISoc.org). Urdu Internet Society (UISoc) is a Social Community Network for the support of Global Urdu Internet Community. (Urdu is the most popular & spoken language of Asia and there are more than 60m Urdu Speaking People around the world and about 30% approx. out of them are linked with Internet). Urdu Internet Society provides support for ICT & Security Policies Development for the betterment of the Urdu related users and the Nation. We are also engaging work groups of the technical experts as support teams to facilitates users (members) to discuss  their problems, propose them solutions, and highlight their achievements as well as to conduct surveys and to publish statistical analysis + survey reports. We also help to coordinate with experts for policies development services. Recent Initiative about Global Information Security: Urdu Internet Society (UISoc) and Pakistan Information Security Association (PISA), has engaged 'International Information Systems Security Certification Consortium' (ISC)2 to conduct "Information Security Asia Conference 2011" in Pakistan. This will be the 1st International Information Security Conference in Pakistan. Urdu Internet Society fully support this important initiative and has offered its services as Organizing Partner of the Conference. One of the federal Ministries has principally agreed to become the Primary Partner to Organize and Host the event. We also have obtained support from Cabinet of Pakistan. IEEE, Pakistan also has confirmed their support for the event. We also have got meeting with the Protractors of the three big Universities and have obtained their support for our initiatives. Initiative about Regional IGF: With reference to IGF, with the context of Global & Regional Policies development and demand from the Public and Private Sectors, I was asked to form a regional IGF Working Group engaging Technical Experts, ISPs, IT users and companies, involving the representatives of Academia and Government Institutions. This regional IGF working group will have to provide the coordination for local community members and will provide the related contents and material in local language that is Urdu. We agreed to dedicate the website IGFPAK.com/org for this purpose. We also agree to invite representative of Public and Private Sector, non-resident Pakistan (Local community members living abroad) and Security & Anti-Cyber-Crimes Fighting Groups. It was my opinion that we should provide bilingual contents in Urdu & English and before announcing it, we should obtain the permission from IGF Secretariat. However, the consensus was very much necessary to-do so. I also informed my fellows about the IGC and told them to obtain opinion, if found IGC coordinator find it feasible. We decided to obtain the consultation from IGC Coordinator, and if they support than we could forward to IGF Secretariat. I was wondering for information to take the further steps and I contacted Ms Ginger Paque, (as she is the Coordinator of IGC) through email some days ago, for the same queries. She asked me to circulate my queries and request for support to IGC mailing list to obtain the opinion and guidance of the experts. Fortunately, today, during the 4th day session of IGF Session regarding “Asia Pacific Regional IGF”, Room-6, Remote Participation, Ms Ginger Paque encouraged me to submit my queries online for everyone. I followed her and submitted my queries, my request asking for support and guidance from IGC, IGF and other Working Groups. I was surprised when I heard that she was representing my queries and request (word by words) to the audience of the session and in the presence of Secretary-General for Internet Governance, Mr MARKUS KUMMER. During the two consequent sessions, in the same Room No. 6, participants discussed about the regional IGFs formation pre-requisites and/or review comments on it. Finally, Mr MARKUS KUMMER described that “They can say they are Pakistan or whatever IGF. And then all, collectively all the national and regional IGF initiatives say, if you want to be one of us, you have to be open, you have to be bottom/up, and you have to be multi-stakeholder. And if you fulfill these criteria, then we allow you collectively to call yourself IGF.”; Later on Mr MARKUS KUMMER also had defined the procedure and pre-requests for the formation of Regional IGF during his address in second last session that Regional IGF should be transparent and open for all comprising the multi-stakeholders. We are formulizing the pattern to organize the working group for IGF PAK, following the guide lines of the Secretary-General for Internet Governance, Mr MARKUS KUMMER. We are listing down current matters, which should be included for discussion at this platform. Regional website IGFPAK.com will provide the online presence of this working group and will host the related contents and meetings information in English & Urdu Languages. Request for Suggestions and Support from IGC members: You are requested to please guide us in this regard with your opinion, willingness of support, becoming the part of the working groups or highlight the important issues to include in the initiative with the regional and global prospective and Internet Governance aspects. Thanking you & Best Regards,   Best Regards,   Imran Ahmad Shah   Founder& Executive Member Urdu Internet Society [imran at uisoc.org] [+92-300-4130617]   ================================================================================= P.S.:Respected Dr Sarmad Hussain/ Mr Zahid Jamil/ Mr Fouad Bajwa and Mr Naveed ul Haq, we also need your support to join our hands for this important initiative and for a common goal and a collective achievement to strengthen Regional IGF, the IGF PAK. (as you all are at IGF from Pakistan, well before my entrance to this community network). We look forward to participating in collaborative efforts to organize local IGF Working Group in Pakistan. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 17 17:51:20 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 03:21:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] My IGF closing session speech In-Reply-To: <98ABD6F6-A81C-4E33-9F24-2C911A07B251@ciroap.org> References: <98ABD6F6-A81C-4E33-9F24-2C911A07B251@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4C93E2D8.4040204@itforchange.net> The speech came out very clear and forceful... the kind of which gets heard and makes some impact... congrats Jeremy... On Friday 17 September 2010 08:56 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > is here: > > http://www.igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-statement-for-civil-society-at-igf-2010s-closing-session > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 18 02:08:23 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 08:08:23 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] My IGF closing session speech References: <98ABD6F6-A81C-4E33-9F24-2C911A07B251@ciroap.org> <4C93E2D8.4040204@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07131@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Good speech Jeremy both presentations - Gingers and yours - gave the Caucus a good profile. Thanks a lot. 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 glaser at nic.br Sat Sep 18 03:07:24 2010 From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Glaser) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 04:07:24 -0300 Subject: [governance] My IGF closing session speech In-Reply-To: <98ABD6F6-A81C-4E33-9F24-2C911A07B251@ciroap.org> References: <98ABD6F6-A81C-4E33-9F24-2C911A07B251@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4C94652C.4010308@nic.br> ... excelent ...! =========================== On 17/09/10 12:26, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > is here: > > http://www.igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-statement-for-civil-society-at-igf-2010s-closing-session > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 18 03:12:22 2010 From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Glaser) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 04:12:22 -0300 Subject: [governance] CS IGC presentation yesterday, opening session IGF In-Reply-To: <4C90681F.8000500@gmail.com> References: <4C90681F.8000500@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4C946656.9010900@nic.br> ... was a very good speech ...! ========================= On 15/09/10 03:30, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Our presentation is online at: http://bit.ly/bHQLMP Ginger's > presentation at Opening Ceremony > > Here is the text: > Opening Session September 14, 2010 > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Co-coordinator, Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus > > Good afternoon, excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and > gentlemen. I would like to think that I am speaking for the Civil > society Internet Governance Caucus or IGC, for Civil society, and in > fact, for everyone here today. How can that be? > > Many of us wear several hats indicating our profession or > affiliation... Today, I am speaking as co-coordinator of the Civil > society IG caucus, but I am also Internet Governance Capacity Building > Programme online course coordinator for DiploFoundation... two civil > society hats... > > Some of us represent government, business, academia and civil society > in different or overlapping areas of our lives, or at different times > of the day... but in the end, we take off our hats and we are members > of society, individuals, Internet users. We are parents, worried about > our children's safety online. We are Internet users concerned about > the security of our financial data. We are citizens seeking to protect > our basic rights to access, freedom of expression, and information. > > Multistakeholderism -- recognised in the Tunis Agenda 2005 - was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS. It was accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance and the IGF in contrast to the intergovernmental stakeholder approach previously applied. > > This success demands that the IGF continue with its core structure basically unchanged, while emphasizing the further application of enhanced cooperation. > > The Civil Society in each of us worries about our human rights, about > child porn, and about being scammed. We worry about finding > information in our native languages. We worry that the richness and > diversity of our traditions will be replaced by a new SMS text > language. The Civil society Internet Governance Caucus asks that we > continue to work on these issues together, by appropriately applying > the principles of the basic Human Rights instruments, such as the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights and supporting the principle of > indivisibility of rights highlighted in the WSIS declaration of > principles. > > This Enhanced Cooperation is not just a process that will address the > issue of Critical Internet Resources. It also allows the IGF to set a > precedent to address all global IG issues. It includes the imperative > of developing policies in addition to the IGF process; a process which > is oriented towards taking wide inputs, deliberating on options, and > feeding into the policy developing processes. These two actions are > complementary though clearly distinct and both must be achieved. > > In this regard we salute the ECOSOC report E/2009/92 adopted last > month that makes these two points. We also note happily that the > once-stalled process of Enhanced Cooperation is now being prioritized, > as was mandated by the WSIS, through the planned open consultations > later this year. > > We acknowledge the achievements of the Commission on Science and > Technology for Development* * working group on IGF reform and express > our desire and commitment to work closely with it, as well as the > Association for Progressive Communications and other Civil Society > initiatives. > > We continue to support the regional IGF meetings, with closer focus > that will address problems at every level, spreading the impact of the > IGF around the world in physical meetings and including the themes > discussed regionally. > > We support the unique model of dynamically engaged hubs and remote > participation as innovative developments of the IGF. Local meetings > and remote participation have increased inclusion to the point where > this IGF has individual remote participants engaged online around the > world and with an unprecedented 33 local hubs registered. > > We reiterate the importance of capacity development to improve > inclusion, to allow us each to build the resources and knowledge to > reach our goals. > > Finally, we invite all of you to join Civil Society in addressing > specific IG issues such as Net Neutrality vis a vis wireless Internet. > We invite progressive Civil Society and other players to make > themselves clearly heard working towards a user-centric... a > people-centric Internet. We must continue the IGF model of providing a > new set of means and processes for openness and participation that > will become the default global standard. > > > -- > > 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 db at dannybutt.net Sat Sep 18 03:25:28 2010 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 19:25:28 +1200 Subject: [governance] My IGF closing session speech In-Reply-To: <98ABD6F6-A81C-4E33-9F24-2C911A07B251@ciroap.org> References: <98ABD6F6-A81C-4E33-9F24-2C911A07B251@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Just wanted to add my approval to your closing speech - clearly lays out the issues and makes concrete suggestions for change. Well done! Danny -- http://www.dannybutt.net On 18/09/2010, at 3:26 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > is here: > > http://www.igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-statement-for-civil-society-at-igf-2010s-closing-session > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 18 03:32:25 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 17:32:25 +1000 Subject: [governance] My IGF closing session speech In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Me too - excellent speeches from both Jeremy and Ginger. > From: Danny Butt > Reply-To: , Danny Butt > Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 19:25:28 +1200 > To: , Jeremy Malcolm > Subject: Re: [governance] My IGF closing session speech > > Just wanted to add my approval to your closing speech - clearly lays out the > issues and makes concrete suggestions for change. Well done! > > Danny > > -- > http://www.dannybutt.net > > > > On 18/09/2010, at 3:26 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> is here: >> >> http://www.igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-statement-for-civil-society-at-ig >> f-2010s-closing-session >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek >> host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 18 03:33:23 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:33:23 +0300 Subject: [governance] My IGF closing session speech In-Reply-To: References: <98ABD6F6-A81C-4E33-9F24-2C911A07B251@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Jeremy, Good speech overall, one nit to pick. "continuing to expand the inclusiveness of the forum, particularly to participants from the developing world," I heard a lot of this (as in previous years) however, if one looks at the facts available, we see that nearly 2/3 of delegates are from developing countries. These are delegates in "delegations" only from http://info.intgovforum.org/PLPLit.php. 206 delegates from a total of 316 are from IMF listed "developing countries" ...the % is 65.20. Avri, Mawaki, can we get a fuller breakdown of all participants at some point? A mashup would be dead simple if we had full, open data. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Danny Butt wrote: > Just wanted to add my approval to your closing speech - clearly lays out the issues and makes concrete suggestions for change. Well done! > > Danny > > -- > http://www.dannybutt.net > > > > On 18/09/2010, at 3:26 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> is here: >> >> http://www.igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-statement-for-civil-society-at-igf-2010s-closing-session >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek >> host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 18 03:40:43 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 03:40:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] My IGF closing session speech In-Reply-To: <98ABD6F6-A81C-4E33-9F24-2C911A07B251@ciroap.org> References: <98ABD6F6-A81C-4E33-9F24-2C911A07B251@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Agreed. Having both Ginger & Jeremy speak on behalf of the IGC speak was an excellent decision. On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > is here: > > > http://www.igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-statement-for-civil-society-at-igf-2010s-closing-session > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Sep 18 03:46:24 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:46:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] Formation of Regional IGF - IGF PAK In-Reply-To: <492593.68606.qm@web33001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <492593.68606.qm@web33001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: HI, On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Request for Suggestions and Support from IGC members: > > You are requested to please guide us in this regard with your opinion, Why call it a regional IGF if it is in fact a national IGF? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Sep 18 04:06:22 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 05:06:22 -0300 Subject: [governance] My IGF closing session speech In-Reply-To: References: <98ABD6F6-A81C-4E33-9F24-2C911A07B251@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4C9472FE.7000406@cafonso.ca> It would also be quite significant to know about the turnover -- how many people from which regions are newcomers etc. --c.a. ps: excellent presentations by Ginger and Malcolm!!! On 09/18/2010 04:33 AM, McTim wrote: > Jeremy, > > Good speech overall, one nit to pick. > > "continuing to expand the inclusiveness of the forum, particularly to > participants from the developing world," > > I heard a lot of this (as in previous years) > > however, if one looks at the facts available, we see that nearly 2/3 > of delegates are from developing countries. These are delegates in > "delegations" only from http://info.intgovforum.org/PLPLit.php. > > 206 delegates from a total of 316 are from IMF listed "developing > countries" ...the % is 65.20. > > Avri, Mawaki, can we get a fuller breakdown of all participants at some point? > > A mashup would be dead simple if we had full, open data. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 18 05:08:57 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 12:08:57 +0300 Subject: [governance] CS IGC presentation yesterday, opening session IGF In-Reply-To: <4C90681F.8000500@gmail.com> References: <4C90681F.8000500@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ginger, In my modest person accept congrats from my colleagues in DR Congo. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) 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 2010/9/15 Ginger Paque > > Our presentation is online at: http://bit.ly/bHQLMP Ginger's presentation > at Opening Ceremony > > Here is the text: > Opening Session September 14, 2010 > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Co-coordinator, Civil Society Internet Governance > Caucus > > Good afternoon, excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. I > would like to think that I am speaking for the Civil society Internet > Governance Caucus or IGC, for Civil society, and in fact, for everyone here > today. How can that be? > > Many of us wear several hats indicating our profession or affiliation... > Today, I am speaking as co-coordinator of the Civil society IG caucus, but I > am also Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme online course > coordinator for DiploFoundation... two civil society hats... > > Some of us represent government, business, academia and civil society in > different or overlapping areas of our lives, or at different times of the > day... but in the end, we take off our hats and we are members of society, > individuals, Internet users. We are parents, worried about our children's > safety online. We are Internet users concerned about the security of our > financial data. We are citizens seeking to protect our basic rights to > access, freedom of expression, and information. > > Multistakeholderism – recognised in the Tunis Agenda 2005 - was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS. It was accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance and the IGF in contrast to the intergovernmental stakeholder approach previously applied. > This success demands that the IGF continue with its core structure basically unchanged, while emphasizing the further application of enhanced cooperation. > > The Civil Society in each of us worries about our human rights, about > child porn, and about being scammed. We worry about finding information in > our native languages. We worry that the richness and diversity of our > traditions will be replaced by a new SMS text language. The Civil society > Internet Governance Caucus asks that we continue to work on these issues > together, by appropriately applying the principles of the basic Human Rights > instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and > supporting the principle of indivisibility of rights highlighted in the WSIS > declaration of principles. > > This Enhanced Cooperation is not just a process that will address the issue > of Critical Internet Resources. It also allows the IGF to set a precedent to > address all global IG issues. It includes the imperative of developing > policies in addition to the IGF process; a process which is oriented towards > taking wide inputs, deliberating on options, and feeding into the policy > developing processes. These two actions are complementary though clearly > distinct and both must be achieved. > > In this regard we salute the ECOSOC report E/2009/92 adopted last month > that makes these two points. We also note happily that the once-stalled > process of Enhanced Cooperation is now being prioritized, as was mandated by > the WSIS, through the planned open consultations later this year. > > We acknowledge the achievements of the Commission on Science and > Technology for Development* * working group on IGF reform and express our > desire and commitment to work closely with it, as well as the Association > for Progressive Communications and other Civil Society initiatives. > > We continue to support the regional IGF meetings, with closer focus that > will address problems at every level, spreading the impact of the IGF around > the world in physical meetings and including the themes discussed > regionally. > > We support the unique model of dynamically engaged hubs and remote > participation as innovative developments of the IGF. Local meetings and > remote participation have increased inclusion to the point where this IGF > has individual remote participants engaged online around the world and with > an unprecedented 33 local hubs registered. > > We reiterate the importance of capacity development to improve inclusion, > to allow us each to build the resources and knowledge to reach our goals. > > Finally, we invite all of you to join Civil Society in addressing specific > IG issues such as Net Neutrality vis a vis wireless Internet. We invite > progressive Civil Society and other players to make themselves clearly heard > working towards a user-centric… a people-centric Internet. We must continue > the IGF model of providing a new set of means and processes for openness and > participation that will become the default global standard. > > > -- > > 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 b.schombe at gmail.com Sat Sep 18 05:15:50 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 12:15:50 +0300 Subject: [governance] My IGF closing session speech In-Reply-To: <98ABD6F6-A81C-4E33-9F24-2C911A07B251@ciroap.org> References: <98ABD6F6-A81C-4E33-9F24-2C911A07B251@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi Jeremy, I dispatch this information to all colleagues in DR Congo and in the some african countries where we have connection and synergy. Big congrats and we support this speech. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) 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 2010/9/17 Jeremy Malcolm > is here: > > > http://www.igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-statement-for-civil-society-at-igf-2010s-closing-session > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > 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 Sat Sep 18 06:05:18 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 03:05:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Formation of Regional IGF - IGF PAK Message-ID: <416107.36163.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Tim, you may be right if we reduce the scope of the IG policies limited to the boundries of a Country and partcipation to the Nation. However, I believe that internet is a Global thing, and the online contents will be useful for the Urdu Speaking community of the Asia. We would also invite regional organizations such as SAARC for embership. So, we just want to keep it open for global participation from the region. Thanks Imran Ahmed Shah On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 12:46 PKT McTim wrote: >HI, > >On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > >> Request for Suggestions and Support from IGC members: >> >> You are requested to please guide us in this regard with your opinion, > > >Why call it a regional IGF if it is in fact a national IGF? > > >-- >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 Sep 18 09:18:35 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 09:18:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Formation of Regional IGF - IGF PAK In-Reply-To: <492593.68606.qm@web33001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <492593.68606.qm@web33001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi, Just curious: what do you mean by "Urdu is the most popular & spoken language of Asia" with 60m speakers around the world (incl. in Pakistan?) What happens to, say..., Mandarin? Mawaki On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Urdu Internet Society > > ================== > > > > Ref: UIsoc-2K11/Lhe/0917-02 > > > > 17th September 2010 > > To: All members of the IGC Mailing List > > > > *Formation of Regional IGF – IGF PAK* > > Dear All members of the IGC, > > *Some words about Urdu Internet Society:* > > My name is Imran Ahmed Shah (I am from Pakistan), beside other voluntarily > global and local contributions and initiates, I also belongs to Urdu > Internet Society (UISoc) as a Founder & Executive Member. (www.UISoc.org). > Urdu Internet Society (UISoc) is a Social Community Network for the support > of Global Urdu Internet Community. (Urdu is the most popular & spoken > language of Asia and there are more than 60m Urdu Speaking People around the > world and about 30% approx. out of them are linked with Internet). > > Urdu Internet Society provides support for ICT & Security Policies > Development for the betterment of the Urdu related users and the Nation. We > are also engaging work groups of the technical experts as support teams to > facilitates users (members) to discuss their problems, propose them > solutions, and highlight their achievements as well as to conduct surveys > and to publish statistical analysis + survey reports. We also help to > coordinate with experts for policies development services. > > *Recent Initiative about Global Information Security:* > > Urdu Internet Society (UISoc) and Pakistan Information Security > Association (PISA), has engaged 'International Information Systems Security > Certification Consortium' (ISC)2 to conduct "Information Security Asia > Conference 2011" in Pakistan. This will be the 1st International Information > Security Conference in Pakistan. Urdu Internet Society fully support this > important initiative and has offered its services as Organizing Partner of > the Conference. One of the federal Ministries has principally agreed to > become the Primary Partner to Organize and Host the event. We also have > obtained support from Cabinet of Pakistan. IEEE, Pakistan also has confirmed > their support for the event. We also have got meeting with the Protractors > of the three big Universities and have obtained their support for our > initiatives. > > *Initiative about Regional IGF:* > > With reference to IGF, with the context of Global & Regional Policies > development and demand from the Public and Private Sectors, I was asked to > form a regional IGF Working Group engaging Technical Experts, ISPs, IT users > and companies, involving the representatives of Academia and Government > Institutions. This regional IGF working group will have to provide the > coordination for local community members and will provide the related > contents and material in local language that is Urdu. We agreed to dedicate > the website IGFPAK.com/org for this purpose. We also agree to invite > representative of Public and Private Sector, non-resident Pakistan (Local > community members living abroad) and Security & Anti-Cyber-Crimes Fighting > Groups. > > It was my opinion that we should provide bilingual contents in Urdu & > English and before announcing it, we should obtain the permission from IGF > Secretariat. However, the consensus was very much necessary to-do so. I also > informed my fellows about the IGC and told them to obtain opinion, if found > IGC coordinator find it feasible. > > We decided to obtain the consultation from IGC Coordinator, and if they > support than we could forward to IGF Secretariat. I was wondering for > information to take the further steps and I contacted Ms Ginger Paque, (as > she is the Coordinator of IGC) through email some days ago, for the same > queries. She asked me to circulate my queries and request for support to IGC > mailing list to obtain the opinion and guidance of the experts. > > Fortunately, today, during the 4th day session of IGF Session regarding > “Asia Pacific Regional IGF”, Room-6, Remote Participation, Ms Ginger Paque > encouraged me to submit my queries online for everyone. I followed her and > submitted my queries, my request asking for support and guidance from IGC, > IGF and other Working Groups. I was surprised when I heard that she was > representing my queries and request (word by words) to the audience of the > session and in the presence of Secretary-General for Internet Governance, Mr > MARKUS KUMMER. > > During the two consequent sessions, in the same Room No. 6, participants > discussed about the regional IGFs formation pre-requisites and/or review > comments on it. Finally, Mr MARKUS KUMMER described that *“They can say > they are Pakistan or whatever IGF. And then all, collectively all the > national and regional IGF initiatives say, if you want to be one of us, you > have to be open, you have to be bottom/up, and you have to be > multi-stakeholder. And if you fulfill these criteria, then we allow you > collectively to call yourself IGF.”;* Later on Mr MARKUS KUMMER also had > defined the procedure and pre-requests for the formation of Regional IGF > during his address in second last session that Regional IGF should be > transparent and open for all comprising the multi-stakeholders. > > We are formulizing the pattern to organize the working group for IGF PAK, > following the guide lines of the Secretary-General for Internet Governance, > Mr MARKUS KUMMER. We are listing down current matters, which should be > included for discussion at this platform. Regional website IGFPAK.com will > provide the online presence of this working group and will host the related > contents and meetings information in English & Urdu Languages. > > *Request for Suggestions and Support from IGC members:* > > You are requested to please guide us in this regard with your opinion, > willingness of support, becoming the part of the working groups or highlight > the important issues to include in the initiative with the regional and > global prospective and Internet Governance aspects. > > Thanking you & Best Regards, > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Imran Ahmad Shah > > > > Founder & Executive Member > > *Urdu Internet Society* > > [imran at uisoc.org] > > [+92-300-4130617] > > > > > ================================================================================= > > *P.S.:* Respected Dr Sarmad Hussain/ Mr Zahid Jamil/ Mr Fouad Bajwa and Mr > Naveed ul Haq, we also need your support to join our hands for this > important initiative and for a common goal and a collective achievement to > strengthen Regional IGF, the IGF PAK. (as you all are at IGF from Pakistan, > well before my entrance to this community network). We look forward to > participating in collaborative efforts to organize local IGF Working Group > in Pakistan. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > 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 Sat Sep 18 09:59:57 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 06:59:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Formation of Regional IGF - IGF PAK Message-ID: <910971.30157.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yes there is some mistake, as the population of Pakistan is only 16-20 plus crore (160-200m). Thanks for correction. Imran On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:18 PKT Mawaki Chango wrote: >Hi, > >Just curious: what do you mean by "Urdu is the most popular & spoken >language of Asia" >with 60m speakers around the world (incl. in Pakistan?) What happens to, >say..., Mandarin? > >Mawaki > > >On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >> Urdu Internet Society >> >> ================== >> >> >> >> Ref: UIsoc-2K11/Lhe/0917-02 >> >> >> >> 17th September 2010 >> >> To: All members of the IGC Mailing List >> >> >> >> *Formation of Regional IGF – IGF PAK* >> >> Dear All members of the IGC, >> >> *Some words about Urdu Internet Society:* >> >> My name is Imran Ahmed Shah (I am from Pakistan), beside other voluntarily >> global and local contributions and initiates, I also belongs to Urdu >> Internet Society (UISoc) as a Founder & Executive Member. (www.UISoc.org). >> Urdu Internet Society (UISoc) is a Social Community Network for the support >> of Global Urdu Internet Community. (Urdu is the most popular & spoken >> language of Asia and there are more than 60m Urdu Speaking People around the >> world and about 30% approx. out of them are linked with Internet). >> >> Urdu Internet Society provides support for ICT & Security Policies >> Development for the betterment of the Urdu related users and the Nation. We >> are also engaging work groups of the technical experts as support teams to >> facilitates users (members) to discuss their problems, propose them >> solutions, and highlight their achievements as well as to conduct surveys >> and to publish statistical analysis + survey reports. We also help to >> coordinate with experts for policies development services. >> >> *Recent Initiative about Global Information Security:* >> >> Urdu Internet Society (UISoc) and Pakistan Information Security >> Association (PISA), has engaged 'International Information Systems Security >> Certification Consortium' (ISC)2 to conduct "Information Security Asia >> Conference 2011" in Pakistan. This will be the 1st International Information >> Security Conference in Pakistan. Urdu Internet Society fully support this >> important initiative and has offered its services as Organizing Partner of >> the Conference. One of the federal Ministries has principally agreed to >> become the Primary Partner to Organize and Host the event. We also have >> obtained support from Cabinet of Pakistan. IEEE, Pakistan also has confirmed >> their support for the event. We also have got meeting with the Protractors >> of the three big Universities and have obtained their support for our >> initiatives. >> >> *Initiative about Regional IGF:* >> >> With reference to IGF, with the context of Global & Regional Policies >> development and demand from the Public and Private Sectors, I was asked to >> form a regional IGF Working Group engaging Technical Experts, ISPs, IT users >> and companies, involving the representatives of Academia and Government >> Institutions. This regional IGF working group will have to provide the >> coordination for local community members and will provide the related >> contents and material in local language that is Urdu. We agreed to dedicate >> the website IGFPAK.com/org for this purpose. We also agree to invite >> representative of Public and Private Sector, non-resident Pakistan (Local >> community members living abroad) and Security & Anti-Cyber-Crimes Fighting >> Groups. >> >> It was my opinion that we should provide bilingual contents in Urdu & >> English and before announcing it, we should obtain the permission from IGF >> Secretariat. However, the consensus was very much necessary to-do so. I also >> informed my fellows about the IGC and told them to obtain opinion, if found >> IGC coordinator find it feasible. >> >> We decided to obtain the consultation from IGC Coordinator, and if they >> support than we could forward to IGF Secretariat. I was wondering for >> information to take the further steps and I contacted Ms Ginger Paque, (as >> she is the Coordinator of IGC) through email some days ago, for the same >> queries. She asked me to circulate my queries and request for support to IGC >> mailing list to obtain the opinion and guidance of the experts. >> >> Fortunately, today, during the 4th day session of IGF Session regarding >> “Asia Pacific Regional IGF”, Room-6, Remote Participation, Ms Ginger Paque >> encouraged me to submit my queries online for everyone. I followed her and >> submitted my queries, my request asking for support and guidance from IGC, >> IGF and other Working Groups. I was surprised when I heard that she was >> representing my queries and request (word by words) to the audience of the >> session and in the presence of Secretary-General for Internet Governance, Mr >> MARKUS KUMMER. >> >> During the two consequent sessions, in the same Room No. 6, participants >> discussed about the regional IGFs formation pre-requisites and/or review >> comments on it. Finally, Mr MARKUS KUMMER described that *“They can say >> they are Pakistan or whatever IGF. And then all, collectively all the >> national and regional IGF initiatives say, if you want to be one of us, you >> have to be open, you have to be bottom/up, and you have to be >> multi-stakeholder. And if you fulfill these criteria, then we allow you >> collectively to call yourself IGF.”;* Later on Mr MARKUS KUMMER also had >> defined the procedure and pre-requests for the formation of Regional IGF >> during his address in second last session that Regional IGF should be >> transparent and open for all comprising the multi-stakeholders. >> >> We are formulizing the pattern to organize the working group for IGF PAK, >> following the guide lines of the Secretary-General for Internet Governance, >> Mr MARKUS KUMMER. We are listing down current matters, which should be >> included for discussion at this platform. Regional website IGFPAK.com will >> provide the online presence of this working group and will host the related >> contents and meetings information in English & Urdu Languages. >> >> *Request for Suggestions and Support from IGC members:* >> >> You are requested to please guide us in this regard with your opinion, >> willingness of support, becoming the part of the working groups or highlight >> the important issues to include in the initiative with the regional and >> global prospective and Internet Governance aspects. >> >> Thanking you & Best Regards, >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> >> Imran Ahmad Shah >> >> >> >> Founder & Executive Member >> >> *Urdu Internet Society* >> >> [imran at uisoc.org] >> >> [+92-300-4130617] >> >> >> >> >> ================================================================================= >> >> *P.S.:* Respected Dr Sarmad Hussain/ Mr Zahid Jamil/ Mr Fouad Bajwa and Mr >> Naveed ul Haq, we also need your support to join our hands for this >> important initiative and for a common goal and a collective achievement to >> strengthen Regional IGF, the IGF PAK. (as you all are at IGF from Pakistan, >> well before my entrance to this community network). We look forward to >> participating in collaborative efforts to organize local IGF Working Group >> in Pakistan. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 18 10:24:14 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:24:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] My IGF closing session speech In-Reply-To: References: <98ABD6F6-A81C-4E33-9F24-2C911A07B251@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I'd like to think Parminder and Danny have spoken my words about the CS closing session speech. Thank you both, Jeremy and Ginger, for the good work. McTim: that is a nit, indeed.... ;) In fact I don't have that kind of information and wasn't there myself. But I'd guess that attendance is not actual participation, and suggest that when we're considering this data, we distinguish CS from government delegates (and as far as we're concerned, focus on the former.) In my view, it's about civil (eg, IGC*) and epistemic (eg, Diplo) empowerment in order to foster quality contribution -- and I might add, a people-oriented one, as Ginger put it -- to this processes. Cheers and safe trips to all traveling, Mawaki (*) I'd admit IGC has in itself both elements of civil empowerment and epistemic community, while Diplo disseminates knowledge of IG through a formal program. No matter the number of developing country delegates in attendance at IGF and such, these activities and many more need to be carried out and supported in order to enable (economically) developing nation's ownership of relevant IG issues, and their inputs. On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 3:33 AM, McTim wrote: > Jeremy, > > Good speech overall, one nit to pick. > > "continuing to expand the inclusiveness of the forum, particularly to > participants from the developing world," > > I heard a lot of this (as in previous years) > > however, if one looks at the facts available, we see that nearly 2/3 > of delegates are from developing countries. These are delegates in > "delegations" only from http://info.intgovforum.org/PLPLit.php. > > 206 delegates from a total of 316 are from IMF listed "developing > countries" ...the % is 65.20. > > Avri, Mawaki, can we get a fuller breakdown of all participants at some > point? > > A mashup would be dead simple if we had full, open data. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Danny Butt wrote: > > Just wanted to add my approval to your closing speech - clearly lays out > the issues and makes concrete suggestions for change. Well done! > > > > Danny > > > > -- > > http://www.dannybutt.net > > > > > > > > On 18/09/2010, at 3:26 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > >> is here: > >> > >> > http://www.igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-statement-for-civil-society-at-igf-2010s-closing-session > >> > >> -- > >> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > >> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek > >> host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From graciela at nupef.org.br Sat Sep 18 11:39:29 2010 From: graciela at nupef.org.br (Graciela Selaimen) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 12:39:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] My IGF closing session speech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C94DD31.90403@nupef.org.br> Very good indeed. Congrats to both! Graciela Ian Peter escreveu: > Me too - excellent speeches from both Jeremy and Ginger. > > > >> From: Danny Butt >> Reply-To: , Danny Butt >> Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 19:25:28 +1200 >> To: , Jeremy Malcolm >> Subject: Re: [governance] My IGF closing session speech >> >> Just wanted to add my approval to your closing speech - clearly lays out the >> issues and makes concrete suggestions for change. Well done! >> >> Danny >> >> -- >> http://www.dannybutt.net >> >> >> >> On 18/09/2010, at 3:26 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> >>> is here: >>> >>> http://www.igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-statement-for-civil-society-at-ig >>> f-2010s-closing-session >>> >>> -- >>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >>> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek >>> host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 18 11:45:32 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 17:45:32 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] FYI In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07123@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20100916223253.05d33438@jefsey.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07123@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <3518652.119604.1284824732260.JavaMail.www@wwinf2234> That was the Heritage Foundations view. Very revealing, especially through the comments. And now, Wolfgang, what about the Tea Party's view ? Best Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT > Message du 17/09/10 06:02 > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, info at hoferichter.eu > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] FYI > > > > http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/16/warning-sounded-over-upcoming-u-n-general-assembly-deliberations-on-internet-governance/ > > w > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > 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 Sat Sep 18 12:28:24 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 09:28:24 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [liberationtech] The Internet Freedom Fallacy and the Arab Digitalactivism Message-ID: Of some interest in this context as well, I think. M -----Original Message----- From: liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Ronald Deibert Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 10:55 AM To: Liberation Tech List Subject: [liberationtech] The Internet Freedom Fallacy and the Arab Digitalactivism http://samibengharbia.com/2010/09/17/the-internet-freedom-fallacy-and-the-ar ab-digital-activism/ This essay by Sami Ben Gharbia is very detailed and makes a number of very provocative and important arguments. I highly recommend it. Ronald J. Deibert Director, The Citizen Lab Munk School of Global Affairs University of Toronto r.deibert at utoronto.ca http://deibert.citizenlab.org/ twitter.com/citizenlab _______________________________________________ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Sat Sep 18 13:11:42 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:11:42 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] My IGF closing session speech In-Reply-To: <4C94DD31.90403@nupef.org.br> References: <4C94DD31.90403@nupef.org.br> Message-ID: <50000.81.7.88.11.1284829902.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org> Good statement Jeremy. And it contains lots of clear points we can build on in proposing ways in which to make the IGF process more effective. nriette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 18 16:41:43 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 05:41:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] Thanks to "My IGF closing session speech" and IGF Japan in Okinawa this Oct 29-30 Message-ID: I also like to join those congrats and thanks to both Jeremy and Ginger, and all others who supported, contributed, and participated in one way or other for our IGC works for Vilnius. I have had great days here and will head back tomorrow to Tokyo. Thank you all. Let's keep this spirit and quality to the next round! And, we are going to host IGF Japan, as national event, but open to regional and global participation, soon, in end of October in Okinawa, in line with APEC TEL Ministerial meeting. Will send more details later. izumi 2010/9/19 Anriette Esterhuysen : > Good statement Jeremy. And it contains lots of clear points we can build > on in proposing ways in which to make the IGF process more effective. > > nriette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 18 16:56:59 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:56:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: AW: [governance] FYI In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07136@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20100916223253.05d33438@jefsey.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07123@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <3518652.119604.1284824732260.JavaMail.www@wwinf2234> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07136@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <18206396.3191.1284843419738.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k11> Well, Wolfgang Then, please read just the following article from TelecomTV Newsletter (17 September 2010), and let's imagine such a legislation with Mr Beck or Mrs Palin in the Whitehouse .... Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT New US "mega kill bill" would give President and DHS even more power to control the Internet Posted By Martyn Warwick , 17 September 2010 | 0 Comments | (0) function postBackHiddenField(hiddenFieldID,hiddenFieldID2,TagId,IndSecName) { var hiddenField = $get(hiddenFieldID); var hiddenField2 = $get(hiddenFieldID2); if (hiddenField) { hiddenField.value = (TagId); hiddenField2.value = (IndSecName); __doPostBack(hiddenFieldID,''); } } Tags: Internet legislation Politics There's more legislative jiggery-pokery underway in the US. Two cyber-security bills containing clauses that would allow President Obama and his successors to shut-down all or parts of the Internet in the event of a nebulous and undefined "national emergency" have been rolled together into one overarching mega-bill. Martyn Warwick reports. If passed, the new law would give the Department of Homeland Security power "to determine" what constitutes a cyber-security threat and also to "police" what individual citizens are accessing via the web. If this wasn't so serious it would be laughable. That's because the Department of Homeland Security comprehensively failed a recent "cyber-security audit" that (get this!) was carried out by... wait for it... the department of Homeland Security's very own Inspector General! The inspection found that the DHS to be "plagued" by "at least 600 vulnerabilities" 202 of which have been classified as high-risk. So, we know that the DHS can't make it's own internal network safe, and, given that fact, it is entirely valid to ask, "Is this agency anywhere near capable of determining what constitutes a real and serious potential cyber-attack and then "securing" the public Internet if it decides an attack is imminent? Make no mistake this is very serious stuff. Contained in the draft bill are proposals to give the President personal power to turn-off whole sections of the Internet for AT LEAST FOUR MONTHS at a time and longer if "circumstances" are deemed to warrant it -  and those circumstances will be determined either by the President and his immediate advisors or by the unaccountable apparatchiks at the DHS. Things would be done by executive order or departmental fiat and with absolutely no Congressional oversight or debate. An alternative proposal is to hand this power to the DHS and allow it to block all web traffic coming in to the US from "certain specified countries" as well as being enabled to shut down "specific networks and hubs." That way totalitarianism lies. Senator Joe Lieberman, a prime-mover behind, and prominent sponsor of, the proposed new laws let the cat out of the bag a while back on live TV. He told CNN reported Candy Crowley, “Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too.” The Democrats, (for it is they who are agitating for the new legislation) are acting with unseemly haste and want to get the bill onto the Statute Book before November's mid-term elections, when it is expected that their candidates will take a pasting at the polling stations. The Senator also claims that the Internet, in its global entirety and many iterations, is a "strategic national asset of the United States." This man needs to get out beyond the national boundaries of his own country a bit more often and to take cognisance of what's happening elsewhere. The US most certainly does not "own" the Internet. > Message du 18/09/10 22:14 > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > A : "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" > Copie à : > Objet : AW: [governance] FYI > > > > Jean Louis > > I just wanted to raise awaneress that these people are still here and we should not be naive. > > w > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr] > Gesendet: Sa 18.09.2010 17:45 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; info at hoferichter.eu > Betreff: re: [governance] FYI > > > > That was the Heritage Foundations view. Very revealing, especially through the comments. > > And now, Wolfgang, what about the Tea Party's view ? > > Best > Jean-Louis Fullsack > CSDPTT > > > > > > > > Message du 17/09/10 06:02 > > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, info at hoferichter.eu > > Copie à : > > Objet : [governance] FYI > > > > > > > > http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/16/warning-sounded-over-upcoming-u-n-general-assembly-deliberations-on-internet-governance/ > > > > w > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > 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 Sep 18 16:58:10 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 02:28:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election Message-ID: <4C9527E2.3050604@itforchange.net> Dear All Regarding the election for a new co-coordinator of IGC, I would like to propose Izumi Aizu as a candidate. Izumi has agreed to accept the nomination (after some persuasions :) ) 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 Sat Sep 18 23:23:27 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 06:23:27 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election In-Reply-To: <4C9527E2.3050604@itforchange.net> References: <4C9527E2.3050604@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <409E1BE6-F81C-4DDD-8391-79604822E3AC@ciroap.org> On 18/09/2010, at 11:58 PM, parminder wrote: > Dear All > > Regarding the election for a new co-coordinator of IGC, I would like to propose Izumi Aizu as a candidate. > > Izumi has agreed to accept the nomination (after some persuasions :) ) Rafik Dammak has also nominated, so we have two candidates so far. If you intend to nominate yourself or someone else, please do so by Wednesday - or let me know if you would like more time (that deadline is not inflexible). -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 Sun Sep 19 04:37:45 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 17:37:45 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election In-Reply-To: <4C9527E2.3050604@itforchange.net> References: <4C9527E2.3050604@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Thank you Parminder for your nomination. And yes, I accept the nomination. Though I have been involved with our caucus from the early days, I must say I was not that much active recently due mostly to the domestic issues of Internet governance. If selected, I will do my best to catch up and work for the new round of IGF to come. izumi leaving Vilnius in three hours. izumi 2010/9/19 parminder : > Dear All > > Regarding  the election for a new co-coordinator of IGC, I would like to > propose Izumi Aizu as a candidate. > >  Izumi  has agreed to accept the nomination (after some persuasions :) ) > > 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 > --                         >> 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 Sun Sep 19 04:43:47 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 04:13:47 -0430 Subject: OFFLIST....Re: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election In-Reply-To: References: <4C9527E2.3050604@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C95CD43.9060800@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 gpaque at gmail.com Sun Sep 19 05:29:37 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 04:59:37 -0430 Subject: OFFLIST....Re: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election In-Reply-To: <4C95CD43.9060800@paque.net> References: <4C9527E2.3050604@itforchange.net> <4C95CD43.9060800@paque.net> Message-ID: <4C95D801.2070907@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 Sun Sep 19 08:13:35 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 15:13:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election In-Reply-To: <4C9527E2.3050604@itforchange.net> References: <4C9527E2.3050604@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sep 18, 2010, at 11:58 PM, parminder wrote: > Dear All > > Regarding the election for a new co-coordinator of IGC, I would like to propose Izumi Aizu as a candidate. > > Izumi has agreed to accept the nomination (after some persuasions :) ) Good idea, I support too 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 wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Sun Sep 19 08:48:55 2010 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 14:48:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election In-Reply-To: Message-ID: May I also express my support for Izumi Aizu. Wolfgang Benedek -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sun Sep 19 08:56:17 2010 From: pouzin at well.com (Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 14:56:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] FYI In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07123@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20100916223253.05d33438@jefsey.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07123@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 5:59 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > > http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/16/warning-sounded-over-upcoming-u-n-general-assembly-deliberations-on-internet-governance/ > > w > - - - Hackneyed rhetorics. Crying wolf to cover up power grab by the likes of Facebook, Google, Verisign, US gov, inter alia. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 19 11:07:31 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 17:07:31 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election References: <4C9527E2.3050604@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07137@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Izumi has my full suport. Welcome back. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Gesendet: So 19.09.2010 14:13 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Betreff: Re: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election On Sep 18, 2010, at 11:58 PM, parminder wrote: Dear All Regarding the election for a new co-coordinator of IGC, I would like to propose Izumi Aizu as a candidate. Izumi has agreed to accept the nomination (after some persuasions :) ) Good idea, I support too Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Sep 19 11:09:16 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 17:09:16 +0200 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] FYI References: <7.0.1.0.2.20100916223253.05d33438@jefsey.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07123@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <3518652.119604.1284824732260.JavaMail.www@wwinf2234> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07136@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <18206396.3191.1284843419738.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k11> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07138@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Jean Louis you are absolutly right that the worst - may be - is not behind but in front of us. ;-((( w ________________________________ Von: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr] Gesendet: Sa 18.09.2010 22:56 An: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: re: AW: [governance] FYI Well, Wolfgang Then, please read just the following article from TelecomTV Newsletter (17 September 2010), and let's imagine such a legislation with Mr Beck or Mrs Palin in the Whitehouse .... Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT New US "mega kill bill" would give President and DHS even more power to control the Internet Posted By Martyn Warwick , 17 September 2010 | 0 Comments | (0) function postBackHiddenField(hiddenFieldID,hiddenFieldID2,TagId,IndSecName) { var hiddenField = $get(hiddenFieldID); var hiddenField2 = $get(hiddenFieldID2); if (hiddenField) { hiddenField.value = (TagId); hiddenField2.value = (IndSecName); __doPostBack(hiddenFieldID,''); } } Tags: Internet legislation Politics There's more legislative jiggery-pokery underway in the US. Two cyber-security bills containing clauses that would allow President Obama and his successors to shut-down all or parts of the Internet in the event of a nebulous and undefined "national emergency" have been rolled together into one overarching mega-bill. Martyn Warwick reports. If passed, the new law would give the Department of Homeland Security power "to determine" what constitutes a cyber-security threat and also to "police" what individual citizens are accessing via the web. If this wasn't so serious it would be laughable. That's because the Department of Homeland Security comprehensively failed a recent "cyber-security audit" that (get this!) was carried out by.... wait for it... the department of Homeland Security's very own Inspector General! The inspection found that the DHS to be "plagued" by "at least 600 vulnerabilities" 202 of which have been classified as high-risk. So, we know that the DHS can't make it's own internal network safe, and, given that fact, it is entirely valid to ask, "Is this agency anywhere near capable of determining what constitutes a real and serious potential cyber-attack and then "securing" the public Internet if it decides an attack is imminent? Make no mistake this is very serious stuff. Contained in the draft bill are proposals to give the President personal power to turn-off whole sections of the Internet for AT LEAST FOUR MONTHS at a time and longer if "circumstances" are deemed to warrant it - and those circumstances will be determined either by the President and his immediate advisors or by the unaccountable apparatchiks at the DHS. Things would be done by executive order or departmental fiat and with absolutely no Congressional oversight or debate. An alternative proposal is to hand this power to the DHS and allow it to block all web traffic coming in to the US from "certain specified countries" as well as being enabled to shut down "specific networks and hubs." That way totalitarianism lies. Senator Joe Lieberman, a prime-mover behind, and prominent sponsor of, the proposed new laws let the cat out of the bag a while back on live TV. He told CNN reported Candy Crowley, "Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too." The Democrats, (for it is they who are agitating for the new legislation) are acting with unseemly haste and want to get the bill onto the Statute Book before November's mid-term elections, when it is expected that their candidates will take a pasting at the polling stations. The Senator also claims that the Internet, in its global entirety and many iterations, is a "strategic national asset of the United States." This man needs to get out beyond the national boundaries of his own country a bit more often and to take cognisance of what's happening elsewhere. The US most certainly does not "own" the Internet. > Message du 18/09/10 22:14 > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > A : "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" > Copie à : > Objet : AW: [governance] FYI > > > > Jean Louis > > I just wanted to raise awaneress that these people are still here and we should not be naive. > > w > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr] > Gesendet: Sa 18.09.2010 17:45 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; info at hoferichter.eu > Betreff: re: [governance] FYI > > > > That was the Heritage Foundations view. Very revealing, especially through the comments. > > And now, Wolfgang, what about the Tea Party's view ? > > Best > Jean-Louis Fullsack > CSDPTT > > > > > > > > Message du 17/09/10 06:02 > > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, info at hoferichter.eu > > Copie à : > > Objet : [governance] FYI > > > > > > > > http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/16/warning-sounded-over-upcoming-u-n-general-assembly-deliberations-on-internet-governance/ > > > > w > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 19 17:20:08 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 23:20:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election In-Reply-To: <4C9527E2.3050604@itforchange.net> References: <4C9527E2.3050604@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <40C27E84-AE9C-492E-BD4E-CFADAC552FDD@gmail.com> Good choice and Izumi's nomination has my full support! Fouad Bajwa Message sent using my iPad On 18 Sep 2010, at 22:58, parminder wrote: > Dear All > > Regarding the election for a new co-coordinator of IGC, I would like to propose Izumi Aizu as a candidate. > > Izumi has agreed to accept the nomination (after some persuasions :) ) > > 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 vanda at uol.com.br Sun Sep 19 18:27:00 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 19:27:00 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election In-Reply-To: References: <4C9527E2.3050604@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <000901cb5849$d8a21970$89e64c50$@com.br> You will be the best in this position Izumi. Regards Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 Tel: + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob: + 55 11 8181 1464 -----Original Message----- From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 5:38 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election Thank you Parminder for your nomination. And yes, I accept the nomination. Though I have been involved with our caucus from the early days, I must say I was not that much active recently due mostly to the domestic issues of Internet governance. If selected, I will do my best to catch up and work for the new round of IGF to come. izumi leaving Vilnius in three hours. izumi 2010/9/19 parminder : > Dear All > > Regarding  the election for a new co-coordinator of IGC, I would like to > propose Izumi Aizu as a candidate. > >  Izumi  has agreed to accept the nomination (after some persuasions :) ) > > 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 > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Sep 19 19:42:56 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 01:42:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] My IGF closing session speech In-Reply-To: <98ABD6F6-A81C-4E33-9F24-2C911A07B251@ciroap.org> References: <98ABD6F6-A81C-4E33-9F24-2C911A07B251@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <53FCA9FF-1B6D-4645-B164-D5347251291E@gmail.com> Dear Jeremy, your speech was excellent in stating IGC's views and made it very clear across to all stakeholders that we hold our ground as well as our concerns for improvements and change with already agreed principles from the start and would like to take to move forward strong! Thank you to both you and Ginger for the great effort! Fouad Bajwa Message sent using my iPad On 17 Sep 2010, at 17:26, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > is here: > > http://www.igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-statement-for-civil-society-at-igf-2010s-closing-session > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Sep 19 21:05:20 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 20:05:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election In-Reply-To: <4C9527E2.3050604@itforchange.net> References: <4C9527E2.3050604@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B9B776B@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Excellent choice. I'm happy to know Izumi has accepted. Carlton From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 3:58 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election Dear All Regarding the election for a new co-coordinator of IGC, I would like to propose Izumi Aizu as a candidate. Izumi has agreed to accept the nomination (after some persuasions :) ) 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 jfcallo at ciencitec.com Sun Sep 19 23:48:12 2010 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 23:48:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] Interested In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100919234812.qmza5lgj4sw0g8cc@www.ciencitec.com> Mr. Jeremy: I am interested in supporting its work. Thanks Greetings Jose F. Callo Romero CEO - ciencitec.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Mon Sep 20 01:48:32 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:48:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election In-Reply-To: References: <4C9527E2.3050604@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <532015.85295.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Izumi AIZU, I also support you for the position of IGC Coordinator. Thanks Imran Ahmed Shah for Urdu Internet Society ________________________________ From: Izumi AIZU To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Sent: Sun, 19 September, 2010 13:37:45 Subject: Re: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election Thank you Parminder for your nomination. And yes, I accept the nomination. Though I have been involved with our caucus from the early days, I must say I was not that much active recently due mostly to the domestic issues of Internet governance. If selected, I will do my best to catch up and work for the new round of IGF to come. izumi leaving Vilnius in three hours. izumi 2010/9/19 parminder : > Dear All > > Regarding  the election for a new co-coordinator of IGC, I would like to > propose Izumi Aizu as a candidate. > >  Izumi  has agreed to accept the nomination (after some persuasions :) ) > > 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 > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From divina.meigs at orange.fr Mon Sep 20 02:34:28 2010 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:34:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election In-Reply-To: <532015.85295.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Izumi I also support your nomination for the position of IGC coordinator as I believe your experience with issues at the domestic level in Japan will be very useful to all at the global level Best Divina Frau-Meigs ^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^= Divina Frau-Meigs Professor, media sociology, University Sorbonne nouvelle, Paris (France) Director, master's programme AIGEME "E-learning and media education engineering" Director, research team CREW (EA 4399) Coordinator, i-lab "digital humanities", Sorbonne Paris-Cité Board Member, ECREA (European Communication Research and Education Asso) Past vice-president, IAMCR (Intl Asso for Media and Communication Research) Head, "Media Education Research" Section, IAMCR website: www.medias-matrices.net ^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^= Le 20/09/10 07:48, « Imran Ahmed Shah » a écrit : > Dear Izumi AIZU, I also support you for the position of IGC Coordinator. > Thanks > Imran Ahmed Shah > for Urdu Internet Society > > From: Izumi AIZU > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > Sent: Sun, 19 September, 2010 13:37:45 > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election > > Thank you Parminder for your nomination. > And yes, I accept the nomination. > > Though I have been involved with our caucus from the early days, > I must say I was not that much active recently due mostly to the > domestic issues of Internet governance. If selected, I will do my > best to catch up and work for the new round of IGF to come. > > izumi leaving Vilnius in three hours. > > izumi > > 2010/9/19 parminder : >> > Dear All >> > >> > Regarding the election for a new co-coordinator of IGC, I would like to >> > propose Izumi Aizu as a candidate. >> > >> > Izumi has agreed to accept the nomination (after some persuasions :) ) >> > >> > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Sep 19 02:15:53 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:45:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] CS IGC presentation yesterday, opening session IGF In-Reply-To: <4C90681F.8000500@gmail.com> References: <4C90681F.8000500@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4C95AA99.4070406@itforchange.net> Thanks Ginger, very good stuff, and captures very well the nuances of the kind of IG processes that the IGC supports and want taken ahead. parminder On Wednesday 15 September 2010 12:00 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Our presentation is online at: http://bit.ly/bHQLMP Ginger's > presentation at Opening Ceremony > > Here is the text: > Opening Session September 14, 2010 > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Co-coordinator, Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus > > Good afternoon, excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and > gentlemen. I would like to think that I am speaking for the Civil > society Internet Governance Caucus or IGC, for Civil society, and in > fact, for everyone here today. How can that be? > > Many of us wear several hats indicating our profession or > affiliation... Today, I am speaking as co-coordinator of the Civil > society IG caucus, but I am also Internet Governance Capacity Building > Programme online course coordinator for DiploFoundation... two civil > society hats... > > Some of us represent government, business, academia and civil society > in different or overlapping areas of our lives, or at different times > of the day... but in the end, we take off our hats and we are members > of society, individuals, Internet users. We are parents, worried about > our children's safety online. We are Internet users concerned about > the security of our financial data. We are citizens seeking to protect > our basic rights to access, freedom of expression, and information. > > Multistakeholderism -- recognised in the Tunis Agenda 2005 - was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS. It was accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance and the IGF in contrast to the intergovernmental stakeholder approach previously applied. > > This success demands that the IGF continue with its core structure basically unchanged, while emphasizing the further application of enhanced cooperation. > > The Civil Society in each of us worries about our human rights, about > child porn, and about being scammed. We worry about finding > information in our native languages. We worry that the richness and > diversity of our traditions will be replaced by a new SMS text > language. The Civil society Internet Governance Caucus asks that we > continue to work on these issues together, by appropriately applying > the principles of the basic Human Rights instruments, such as the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights and supporting the principle of > indivisibility of rights highlighted in the WSIS declaration of > principles. > > This Enhanced Cooperation is not just a process that will address the > issue of Critical Internet Resources. It also allows the IGF to set a > precedent to address all global IG issues. It includes the imperative > of developing policies in addition to the IGF process; a process which > is oriented towards taking wide inputs, deliberating on options, and > feeding into the policy developing processes. These two actions are > complementary though clearly distinct and both must be achieved. > > In this regard we salute the ECOSOC report E/2009/92 adopted last > month that makes these two points. We also note happily that the > once-stalled process of Enhanced Cooperation is now being prioritized, > as was mandated by the WSIS, through the planned open consultations > later this year. > > We acknowledge the achievements of the Commission on Science and > Technology for Development* * working group on IGF reform and express > our desire and commitment to work closely with it, as well as the > Association for Progressive Communications and other Civil Society > initiatives. > > We continue to support the regional IGF meetings, with closer focus > that will address problems at every level, spreading the impact of the > IGF around the world in physical meetings and including the themes > discussed regionally. > > We support the unique model of dynamically engaged hubs and remote > participation as innovative developments of the IGF. Local meetings > and remote participation have increased inclusion to the point where > this IGF has individual remote participants engaged online around the > world and with an unprecedented 33 local hubs registered. > > We reiterate the importance of capacity development to improve > inclusion, to allow us each to build the resources and knowledge to > reach our goals. > > Finally, we invite all of you to join Civil Society in addressing > specific IG issues such as Net Neutrality vis a vis wireless Internet. > We invite progressive Civil Society and other players to make > themselves clearly heard working towards a user-centric... a > people-centric Internet. We must continue the IGF model of providing a > new set of means and processes for openness and participation that > will become the default global standard. > > > -- > > 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Sep 20 04:25:20 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:25:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] FYI - ITU References: <20100919234812.qmza5lgj4sw0g8cc@www.ciencitec.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0713D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2010/33.aspx 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 meryem at marzouki.info Mon Sep 20 04:31:02 2010 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:31:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election In-Reply-To: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B9B776B@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> References: <4C9527E2.3050604@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B9B776B@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Message-ID: Dear all, Izumi and Rafik are both excellent candidates who I would be happy to fully support, however I keep concerned with diversity. Since it is Ginger whose term is ending, I would prefer to see one or more women candidating. Moreover, I note that both Izumi and Rafik are based in Japan, while Jeremy is already based in Asia! Any candidates who would ensure both gender and regional diversity? Best, Meryem Le 20 sept. 10 à 03:05, SAMUELS,Carlton A a écrit : > Excellent choice. I’m happy to know Izumi has accepted. > > > > Carlton > > > > From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 3:58 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election > > > > Dear All > > Regarding the election for a new co-coordinator of IGC, I would > like to propose Izumi Aizu as a candidate. > > Izumi has agreed to accept the nomination (after some > persuasions :) ) > > 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Mon Sep 20 09:14:03 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:14:03 +0200 (CEST) Subject: AW: AW: [governance] FYI Message-ID: <18627371.85753.1284988443438.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g16> Dear Wolfgang and members of the list IMHO this iinitiative is arguable in at least two aspects : - Basically : broadband will need huge investments and its impact in developing countries with poor industrial, commercial and value-adding structures is still to be proven. The WorldBank claim of "+10% in BB deployment results in +1,2 in GDP" is a buzz for those who believe it. For BB to become effective as an economy driver you need a suitable environment (as it is proven in all industrialized countries). - Timely : The UN-GA is just taking stock of the achievements in MDGs and both informations and discussions show that there is still a lot to be done on the very basics of these goals such as access to clean water and sanitation, to suitable and affordable housing and energy, to health and care. These are real basic needs and therefore necessitate highest priority. Please read the CS perception of these issues, e.g here : http://ipsnews.net/newsTVE.asp?idnews=52888 That's why I find this ITU_SG statement rather out of place. Pushing always more towards new investments is to be stopped (just to give you an example : there are a dozen submarine cables in place or ready for that along the African West coast, each one costing some hundreds millions dollars). Instead, the ITU would be better advised in limiting such over-redundant investments, and to coordinate the very necessary telecom infrastructure such as the national and subbregional bacbbones with, and integrate them in, the other infrastructure and netwok projects to be implemented in the same areas. ITU has a great responsibility in the fact that more than 30 years after "The Missing Link" (a fore-runner of the WSIS' "digital divide" !) there isn't any valuable subregional telecoms network in Africa, not to speak about a continental network ! Here are the priorities for the ITU, and only once these networks are in place, there will be the time for building African BB networks, exchanging African content : cultural, economical, educational, gouvernemental, and people to people ! Acting in that way, i.e. applying cross-network synergy rules and methodology to infrastructure and network coordination and implementation, will not only save millions of dollars, but will also contribute effectively to the regional integration which in turn will drive the economies in these countries and subregions, as ascertained by multiple research reports and studies. Regional integration is also priority in pan African policy, as the recent AU Summit has well documented and demonstrated. Best Jean-Louis   > Message du 19/09/10 17:11 > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > A : "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" > Copie à : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Objet : AW: AW: [governance] FYI > > > Thanks Jean Louis > > you are absolutly right that the worst - may be - is not behind but in front of us. ;-((( > > w > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr] > Gesendet: Sa 18.09.2010 22:56 > An: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: re: AW: [governance] FYI > > > > Well, Wolfgang > > Then, please read just the following article from TelecomTV Newsletter (17 September 2010), and let's imagine such a legislation with Mr Beck or Mrs Palin in the Whitehouse .... > > Best regards > Jean-Louis Fullsack > CSDPTT > > > > > New US "mega kill bill" would give President and DHS even more power to control the Internet > > Posted By Martyn Warwick , 17 September 2010 | 0 Comments | (0) > function postBackHiddenField(hiddenFieldID,hiddenFieldID2,TagId,IndSecName) { var hiddenField = $get(hiddenFieldID); var hiddenField2 = $get(hiddenFieldID2); if (hiddenField) { hiddenField.value = (TagId); hiddenField2.value = (IndSecName); __doPostBack(hiddenFieldID,''); } } Tags: Internet legislation Politics > > There's more legislative jiggery-pokery underway in the US. Two cyber-security bills containing clauses that would allow President Obama and his successors to shut-down all or parts of the Internet in the event of a nebulous and undefined "national emergency" have been rolled together into one overarching mega-bill. Martyn Warwick reports. > > If passed, the new law would give the Department of Homeland Security power "to determine" what constitutes a cyber-security threat and also to "police" what individual citizens are accessing via the web. > > If this wasn't so serious it would be laughable. That's because the Department of Homeland Security comprehensively failed a recent "cyber-security audit" that (get this!) was carried out by.... wait for it... the department of Homeland Security's very own Inspector General! The inspection found that the DHS to be "plagued" by "at least 600 vulnerabilities" 202 of which have been classified as high-risk. > > So, we know that the DHS can't make it's own internal network safe, and, given that fact, it is entirely valid to ask, "Is this agency anywhere near capable of determining what constitutes a real and serious potential cyber-attack and then "securing" the public Internet if it decides an attack is imminent? > > Make no mistake this is very serious stuff. > > Contained in the draft bill are proposals to give the President personal power to turn-off whole sections of the Internet for AT LEAST FOUR MONTHS at a time and longer if "circumstances" are deemed to warrant it - and those circumstances will be determined either by the President and his immediate advisors or by the unaccountable apparatchiks at the DHS. Things would be done by executive order or departmental fiat and with absolutely no Congressional oversight or debate. > > An alternative proposal is to hand this power to the DHS and allow it to block all web traffic coming in to the US from "certain specified countries" as well as being enabled to shut down "specific networks and hubs." That way totalitarianism lies. > > Senator Joe Lieberman, a prime-mover behind, and prominent sponsor of, the proposed new laws let the cat out of the bag a while back on live TV. He told CNN reported Candy Crowley, "Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too." > > The Democrats, (for it is they who are agitating for the new legislation) are acting with unseemly haste and want to get the bill onto the Statute Book before November's mid-term elections, when it is expected that their candidates will take a pasting at the polling stations. > > The Senator also claims that the Internet, in its global entirety and many iterations, is a "strategic national asset of the United States." This man needs to get out beyond the national boundaries of his own country a bit more often and to take cognisance of what's happening elsewhere. The US most certainly does not "own" the Internet. > > > > > > > > > > Message du 18/09/10 22:14 > > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > > A : "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" > > Copie à : > > Objet : AW: [governance] FYI > > > > > > > > Jean Louis > > > > I just wanted to raise awaneress that these people are still here and we should not be naive. > > > > w > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Von: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr] > > Gesendet: Sa 18.09.2010 17:45 > > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; info at hoferichter.eu > > Betreff: re: [governance] FYI > > > > > > > > That was the Heritage Foundations view. Very revealing, especially through the comments. > > > > And now, Wolfgang, what about the Tea Party's view ? > > > > Best > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > CSDPTT > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Message du 17/09/10 06:02 > > > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > > > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, info at hoferichter.eu > > > Copie à : > > > Objet : [governance] FYI > > > > > > > > > > > > http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/16/warning-sounded-over-upcoming-u-n-general-assembly-deliberations-on-internet-governance/ > > > > > > w > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > 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 Mon Sep 20 09:18:06 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:18:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] FYI - ITU In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0713D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20100919234812.qmza5lgj4sw0g8cc@www.ciencitec.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0713D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <25309063.85920.1284988686735.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g16> Sorry for second posting - the first was not related to relevant message Dear Wolfgang and members of the list IMHO this iinitiative is arguable in at least two aspects : - Basically : broadband will need huge investments and its impact in developing countries with poor industrial, commercial and value-adding structures is still to be proven. The WorldBank claim of "+10% in BB deployment results in +1,2 in GDP" is a buzz for those who believe it. For BB to become effective as an economy driver you need a suitable environment (as it is proven in all industrialized countries). - Timely : The UN-GA is just taking stock of the achievements in MDGs and both informations and discussions show that there is still a lot to be done on the very basics of these goals such as access to clean water and sanitation, to suitable and affordable housing and energy, to health and care. These are real basic needs and therefore necessitate highest priority. Please read the CS perception of these issues, e.g here : http://ipsnews.net/newsTVE.asp?idnews=52888 That's why I find this ITU_SG statement rather out of place. Pushing always more towards new investments is to be stopped (just to give you an example : there are a dozen submarine cables in place or ready for that along the African West coast, each one costing some hundreds millions dollars). Instead, the ITU would be better advised in limiting such over-redundant investments, and to coordinate the very necessary telecom infrastructure such as the national and subbregional bacbbones with, and integrate them in, the other infrastructure and netwok projects to be implemented in the same areas. ITU has a great responsibility in the fact that more than 30 years after "The Missing Link" (a fore-runner of the WSIS' "digital divide" !) there isn't any valuable subregional telecoms network in Africa, not to speak about a continental network ! Here are the priorities for the ITU, and only once these networks are in place, there will be the time for building African BB networks, exchanging African content : cultural, economical, educational, gouvernemental, and people to people ! Acting in that way, i.e. applying cross-network synergy rules and methodology to infrastructure and network coordination and implementation, will not only save millions of dollars, but will also contribute effectively to the regional integration which in turn will drive the economies in these countries and subregions, as ascertained by multiple research reports and studies. Regional integration is also priority in pan African policy, as the recent AU Summit has well documented and demonstrated. Best Jean-Louis   > Message du 20/09/10 10:28 > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] FYI - ITU > > > > http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2010/33.aspx > > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Sep 20 10:13:13 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:13:13 +0300 Subject: [governance] FYI - ITU In-Reply-To: <25309063.85920.1284988686735.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g16> References: <20100919234812.qmza5lgj4sw0g8cc@www.ciencitec.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0713D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <25309063.85920.1284988686735.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g16> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > That's why I find this ITU_SG statement rather out of place. Pushing always > more towards new investments is to be stopped (just to give you an example : > there are a dozen submarine cables in place or ready for that along the > African West coast, each one costing some hundreds millions dollars). A dozen? Methinks that is an exaggeration: http://manypossibilities.net/african-undersea-cables/ > Instead, the ITU would be better advised in limiting such over-redundant > investments, and to coordinate the very necessary telecom infrastructure > such as the national and subbregional bacbbones with, and integrate them in, > the other infrastructure and netwok projects to be implemented in the same > areas. the ITU would be well advised to work with African governments to get out of the way of the PS on this. National backbones in EA are a fiasco. TZ is (allegedly operational, but fantastically expensive), UGPhase 1 completed 2 years ago, but no entity to run it, so it is just rotting in the ground, KE recently gave (yes GAVE) their new backbone to France Telecom/Orange/Telkom Kenya to run, as FT was screaming that they wanted 385 M USD (out of 390 million they spent on Telkon a few years ago). I think you get the picture. The PS meanwhile, is building (has built) regional carriers in EA to take advantage of the 3 new submarine cables in the region. > ITU has a great responsibility in the fact that more than 30 years after > "The Missing Link" (a fore-runner of the WSIS' "digital divide" !) there > isn't any valuable subregional telecoms network in Africa, There are now. not to speak > about a continental network ! Plans afoot by the PS if I read the tea leaves correctly. Here are the priorities for the ITU, and only > once these networks are in place, there will be the time for building > African BB networks, exchanging African content : We have been doing that with IXPs for a decade. cultural, economical, > educational, gouvernemental, and people to people ! Acting in that way, i.e. > applying cross-network synergy rules and methodology to infrastructure and > network coordination and implementation, will not only save millions of > dollars, but will also contribute effectively to the regional integration > which in turn will drive the economies in these countries and subregions, as > ascertained by multiple research reports and studies. Regional integration > is also priority in pan African policy, as the recent AU Summit has well > documented and demonstrated. That is true! Governments must create level playing fields across the regions and let the packets flow freely! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Mon Sep 20 10:47:38 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:47:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] FYI - ITU In-Reply-To: References: <20100919234812.qmza5lgj4sw0g8cc@www.ciencitec.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0713D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <25309063.85920.1284988686735.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g16> Message-ID: <82307692-8914-427B-849A-5E3E3DBBF302@psg.com> Hi, I have not followed it closely enough in the last year or so, but is there still a problem of national right of way being declared by coastal nations, where the coastal nations may get the advantages of the submarine cable, but inland nations are still pretty much blocked from the access? Or has this been resolved on a regional basis? a. On 20 Sep 2010, at 10:13, McTim wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK > wrote: > > > >> That's why I find this ITU_SG statement rather out of place. Pushing always >> more towards new investments is to be stopped (just to give you an example : >> there are a dozen submarine cables in place or ready for that along the >> African West coast, each one costing some hundreds millions dollars). > > A dozen? Methinks that is an exaggeration: > > http://manypossibilities.net/african-undersea-cables/ > > >> Instead, the ITU would be better advised in limiting such over-redundant >> investments, and to coordinate the very necessary telecom infrastructure >> such as the national and subbregional bacbbones with, and integrate them in, >> the other infrastructure and netwok projects to be implemented in the same >> areas. > > the ITU would be well advised to work with African governments to get > out of the way of the PS on this. National backbones in EA are a > fiasco. TZ is (allegedly operational, but fantastically expensive), > UGPhase 1 completed 2 years ago, but no entity to run it, so it is > just rotting in the ground, KE recently gave (yes GAVE) their new > backbone to France Telecom/Orange/Telkom Kenya to run, as FT was > screaming that they wanted 385 M USD (out of 390 million they spent on > Telkon a few years ago). I think you get the picture. > > The PS meanwhile, is building (has built) regional carriers in EA to > take advantage of the 3 new submarine cables in the region. > > >> ITU has a great responsibility in the fact that more than 30 years after >> "The Missing Link" (a fore-runner of the WSIS' "digital divide" !) there >> isn't any valuable subregional telecoms network in Africa, > > There are now. > > not to speak >> about a continental network ! > > Plans afoot by the PS if I read the tea leaves correctly. > > Here are the priorities for the ITU, and only >> once these networks are in place, there will be the time for building >> African BB networks, exchanging African content : > > > We have been doing that with IXPs for a decade. > > > cultural, economical, >> educational, gouvernemental, and people to people ! Acting in that way, i.e. >> applying cross-network synergy rules and methodology to infrastructure and >> network coordination and implementation, will not only save millions of >> dollars, but will also contribute effectively to the regional integration >> which in turn will drive the economies in these countries and subregions, as >> ascertained by multiple research reports and studies. Regional integration >> is also priority in pan African policy, as the recent AU Summit has well >> documented and demonstrated. > > That is true! Governments must create level playing fields across the > regions and let the packets flow freely! > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Sep 20 11:12:00 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:12:00 +0300 Subject: [governance] FYI - ITU In-Reply-To: <82307692-8914-427B-849A-5E3E3DBBF302@psg.com> References: <20100919234812.qmza5lgj4sw0g8cc@www.ciencitec.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0713D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <25309063.85920.1284988686735.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g16> <82307692-8914-427B-849A-5E3E3DBBF302@psg.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I have not followed it closely enough in the last year or so, but is there still a problem of national right of way being declared by coastal nations, where the coastal nations may get the advantages of the submarine cable, but inland nations are still pretty much blocked from the access? I think that was a bogeyman propagated by inland states. I am not aware of it actually happening, but the WA fibers are only now coming online. When Regional carriers arise, as long as they are allowed to cross borders, they will. IIUC, Egypt made SEACOM move their fiber from one side of the Suez canal to their side (for security of course) that was expensive! > > Or has this been resolved on a regional basis? It would be if it came up I think. There are regional regulatory bodies in each region that can deal with this )non-existent AFAIK) 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Mon Sep 20 11:37:47 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:37:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] FYI - ITU In-Reply-To: References: <20100919234812.qmza5lgj4sw0g8cc@www.ciencitec.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0713D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <25309063.85920.1284988686735.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g16> <82307692-8914-427B-849A-5E3E3DBBF302@psg.com> Message-ID: <8130263.17101.1284997067101.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k32> some answers to the questions raised In general, intercontinental or continental submarine cables are laid in internationl waters and a link is derived from a repeaters or an additionnal joint box to the landing station site of the country concerned. Festoon (submarine) cables are hopping from country to country and are agreedd upon by the respective gouvernments (generally through their regulators). Mc Tim wrote : < but the WA fibers are only now coming online.> This isn't true : SAT-3/WASC is in operation since May 2003. And before that, there was SAT-2 and SAT-1 ... in a former life  In the meantime, MainONE and Glo-1 are in service and others are ready to be lit. So, please, update your database Cheers Jean-Louis Fullsack  > Message du 20/09/10 17:13 > De : "McTim" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] FYI - ITU > > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have not followed it closely enough in the last year or so, but is there still a problem of national right of way being declared by coastal nations, where the coastal nations may get the advantages of the submarine cable, but inland nations are still pretty much blocked from the access? > > I think that was a bogeyman propagated by inland states. I am not > aware of it actually happening, but the WA fibers are only now coming > online. When Regional carriers arise, as long as they are allowed to > cross borders, they will. > > IIUC, Egypt made SEACOM move their fiber from one side of the Suez > canal to their side (for security of course) that was expensive! > > > > > Or has this been resolved on a regional basis? > > It would be if it came up I think. There are regional regulatory > bodies in each region that can deal with this )non-existent AFAIK) > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 20 11:44:07 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:44:07 +0300 Subject: [governance] FYI - ITU In-Reply-To: <8130263.17101.1284997067101.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k32> References: <20100919234812.qmza5lgj4sw0g8cc@www.ciencitec.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0713D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <25309063.85920.1284988686735.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g16> <82307692-8914-427B-849A-5E3E3DBBF302@psg.com> <8130263.17101.1284997067101.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k32> Message-ID: Hi, On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > some answers to the questions raised > > In general, intercontinental or continental submarine cables are laid in > internationl waters and a link is derived from a repeaters or an additionnal > joint box to the landing station site of the country concerned. > Festoon (submarine) cables are hopping from country to country and are > agreedd upon by the respective gouvernments (generally through their > regulators). > > Mc Tim wrote : > > < but the WA fibers are only now coming online.> > > This isn't true : SAT-3/WASC is in operation since May 2003. While this is true, i predicated my answer to Avri in terms of the new cables (that in all fairness you had mentioned, and were the origins of the "bogeyman"I mentioned previously. And before > that, there was SAT-2 and SAT-1 ... in a former life  In the meantime, > MainONE and Glo-1 are in service just recently, those are the ones i was referring to. and others are ready to be lit. > So, please, update your database the link I sent is maintained by Steve Song of the Shuttleworth Foundation, it's not mine. -- 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 Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com Mon Sep 20 14:14:33 2010 From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:14:33 -0700 Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe Message-ID: <201009201814.o8KIEeLi010598@mail.cruzio.com> http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/9/20/international-internet-treaty-proposed-europe/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 20 17:17:43 2010 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:17:43 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election In-Reply-To: References: <4C9527E2.3050604@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B9B776B@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Message-ID: Dear All: I am in agreement with Meryem, Izumi and Rafik are all good qualified candidates and dear friends. But I would support a gender balance for the IGC coordinator. All the best to all candidates, regards, Qusai Al-Shatti On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Dear all, > Izumi and Rafik are both excellent candidates who I would be happy to fully > support, however I keep concerned with diversity. > Since it is Ginger whose term is ending, I would prefer to see one or more > women candidating. > Moreover, I note that both Izumi and Rafik are based in Japan, while Jeremy > is already based in Asia! > Any candidates who would ensure both gender and regional diversity? > Best, > Meryem > Le 20 sept. 10 à 03:05, SAMUELS,Carlton A a écrit : > > Excellent choice.  I’m happy to know Izumi has accepted. > > > > Carlton > > > > From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 3:58 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election > > > > Dear All > > Regarding  the election for a new co-coordinator of IGC, I would like to > propose Izumi Aizu as a candidate. > >  Izumi  has agreed to accept the nomination (after some persuasions :) ) > > Parminder > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Sep 21 02:10:41 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 01:40:41 -0430 Subject: [governance] CS IGC presentation yesterday, opening session IGF In-Reply-To: <4C95AA99.4070406@itforchange.net> References: <4C90681F.8000500@gmail.com> <4C95AA99.4070406@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C984C61.7020309@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 pouzin at well.com Tue Sep 21 22:34:19 2010 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 19:34:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe Message-ID: <201009220234.o8M2YJxF004471@well.com> 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 From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Sep 21 22:59:33 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 22:59:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe In-Reply-To: <201009220234.o8M2YJxF004471@well.com> References: <201009220234.o8M2YJxF004471@well.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956AD078@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> 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 From mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Wed Sep 22 03:08:54 2010 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:08:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe In-Reply-To: <201009220234.o8M2YJxF004471@well.com> References: <201009220234.o8M2YJxF004471@well.com> Message-ID: Louis: Yes. Workshop #60. Presented by Council of Europe. The transcript is published. (I went to a different workshop that day) I guess that someone on this list can provide additional information. CW On 22 Sep 2010, at 04:34, Louis Pouzin wrote: > 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Sep 22 03:11:59 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:11:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956AD078@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <201009220234.o8M2YJxF004471@well.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956AD078@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <14C4DEA5-C328-4232-AFD5-46EF05F05491@graduateinstitute.ch> 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 From sdkaaa at gmail.com Wed Sep 22 03:40:08 2010 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:40:08 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election In-Reply-To: References: <4C9527E2.3050604@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B9B776B@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Message-ID: Hey All, It was great seeing you in Vilnius, Qusai and Meryem do you have any suggestions for gender balance support? Thank you. All the best, Bernard. - Bernard SADAKA Mobile: +961 3 172377 Twitter: @sdkaaa Website: http://evoliuvo.com Email : sdkaaa at evoliuvo.com, sdkaaa at gmail.com ------------------------------------------------------ DiploFoundation Associate Social Media & Remote Participation Consultant BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer Lebanon On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: > Dear All: > I am in agreement with Meryem, Izumi and Rafik are all good qualified > candidates and dear friends. But I would support a gender balance for > the IGC coordinator. > > All the best to all candidates, regards, > > Qusai Al-Shatti > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Meryem Marzouki > wrote: > > Dear all, > > Izumi and Rafik are both excellent candidates who I would be happy to > fully > > support, however I keep concerned with diversity. > > Since it is Ginger whose term is ending, I would prefer to see one or > more > > women candidating. > > Moreover, I note that both Izumi and Rafik are based in Japan, > while Jeremy > > is already based in Asia! > > Any candidates who would ensure both gender and regional diversity? > > Best, > > Meryem > > Le 20 sept. 10 à 03:05, SAMUELS,Carlton A a écrit : > > > > Excellent choice. I’m happy to know Izumi has accepted. > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > > > From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 3:58 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election > > > > > > > > Dear All > > > > Regarding the election for a new co-coordinator of IGC, I would like to > > propose Izumi Aizu as a candidate. > > > > Izumi has agreed to accept the nomination (after some persuasions :) ) > > > > Parminder > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Sep 22 05:19:46 2010 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:19:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe In-Reply-To: References: <201009220234.o8M2YJxF004471@well.com> Message-ID: Le 22 sept. 10 à 09:08, CW Mail a écrit : > Louis: Yes. Workshop #60. Presented by Council of Europe. The > transcript is published. (I went to a different workshop that day) > I guess that someone on this list can provide additional information. > > CW > > On 22 Sep 2010, at 04:34, Louis Pouzin wrote: > >> 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 ? Yes, but, for reasons that are beyond my knowledge and understanding, the news article gives it far higher status than it currently has. And calling it an "Internet Treaty" is, well, somewhat anticipating, to say the least. This is a first document proposed by an ad hoc group of individual experts nominated by the CoE to form an "Ad Hoc Advisory Group". And this document - as well as the process - raises a lot of concerns and still needs a lot of discussion. More information about the group is at: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/MC-S-CI/ default_en.asp (MC-S-CI) NB. EDRI (European Digital Rights) is an observer to this group, that I'm representing myself. Unfortunately, due to personal reasons, I missed the first and only formal group meeting on March 1-2 2010, and EDRI was not invited to the consultation meeting on October 2009, prior to the formal setting up of the group. As a matter of fact, EDRI raised strong, though oral, concerns to CoE on the process, and thus asked for an observer status to this group. BTW, EDRI has similar concerns regarding another group, which deals with "the protection of neighbouring rights of broadcasting organisations" (MC-S-NR, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/ media/MC-S-NR/default_en.asp). In this case, EDRI was present at its first consultation meeting, however, this is due to the fact that the consultation has started later (January 2010). EDRI has now been granted an observer status to this group too, but the group is not formed, and thus has not formally started yet, waiting for the European Commission mandate to work on this issue (the CoE wont start without an EC representative to the group). This is a highly politically sensitive issue. Finally, EDRI has an observer status to a third group, on Human Rights in New Media (http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/ MC-NM/default_en.asp). In this case, we fully participate, and find this group fully legitimate. The group is made up of governments representatives, together with observers from different NGOs and professional associations, as well as other institutional bodies (like the European Commission and other CoE bodies) and States not members of, but observers to the CoE (well, it's mainly the Vatican, oooops the Holy Seat, whose representative remains almost silent, though probably blessing our work;)) This group, called MC-NM in CoE jargon, is the one drafting texts such as CoE Recommendations. It is the continuation of former Group on Human Rights in the Information Society (MC-S-IS, http:// www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/MC-S-IS/default_en.asp). There are no finalized drafts from the MC-NM group yet, since it started its work at the end of last year, but there is work in progress on very timely issues, tackling e.g. the protection of human rights with regards to search engines on the one hand and to social networks on the other hand. The group is also discussing a Declaration on network neutrality. I have to acknowledge that observers have been actually granted full participation to MC-S-IS and now to MC-NM, and are actually heard most of the time (except when there is a strong opposition from gov representatives, who remain the decision makers in the group and, consequently, the ones accountable for its results). Next MC-NM meeting, where I'm going to participate, will be held early next week. EDRI newsletter regularly reports on these meetings and other CoE activities (http://www.edri.org/edrigram): - EDRI report on 2nd MC-NM meeting ('New Media, Search Engines And Network Neutrality On 2010 CoE Agenda', 7 April 2010) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number8.7/coe-new-media-working-group - Opinion on 9th MC-S-IS meeting developments ('ENDitorial: CoE - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly', 9 April 2008) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.7/coe-good-bad-ugly - Opinion on 8th MC-S-IS meeting developments ('Enditorial: Coe - Content Regulation: Break On Through; Ipr: It's Tricky', 21 November 2007) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.22/coe-content-regulation - Sign Up Edri Statement On Coe Recommendation - Campaign Update (24 October 2007) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.20/campaign-edri-coe-recommendation - EDRI Statement And Call For Action On New CoE Rec. Failing To Uphold FoE (10 October, 2007): http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.19/call-action-foe-rec - Opinion on developments on CoE Cybercrime Convention ('Enditorial: The 2001 Coe Cybercrime Conv. More Dangerous Than Ever', 20 June, 2007) - EDRI report on European regional meeting on the "Ethical dimensions of the information society" organized by the French Commission for UNESCO in cooperation with UNESCO and the Council of Europe ('Human Rights in the Information Society - rediscover the proportionality', 26.09.2007) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.18/human-rights-is - EDRI report on 7th MC-S-IS meeting ('CoE to address the impact of technical measures on human rights', 12.04.2007): http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.7/coe-human-rights - EDRI report on 5th MC-S-IS meeting ('News on CoE activities on Human Rights in the Information Society', 05.07.2006) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.13/hrinfosoc - EDRI report on 4th MC-S-IS meeting ('CoE works on new instrument on children empowerment on the net', 15.03.2006): http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.5/coe - EDRI report on 2nd MC-S-IS meeting and CoE Pan-European Forum ('Human Rights In The Information Society On CoE Agenda', 21.09.2005): http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.19/CoE - EDRI gets observer status to MC-S-IS group ('EDRI Granted Observer Status In CoE HR Group', 29.06.2005): http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.13/EDRI - EDRI comments on CAHSI Document ('Council Of Europe Declaration On Human Rights And Internet', 24.05.2005): http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.10/CoE - EDRI report on 2nd meeting of the Multidisciplinary Ad-hoc Committee of Experts on the Information Society (CAHSI) ('Council Of Europe Draft Statement On Human Rights And Internet', 20.04.2005) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.8/CoE Best, Meryem Marzouki -- Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France Email: meryem at marzouki.info Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.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 Wed Sep 22 05:21:56 2010 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:21:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe In-Reply-To: <14C4DEA5-C328-4232-AFD5-46EF05F05491@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <201009220234.o8M2YJxF004471@well.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956AD078@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <14C4DEA5-C328-4232-AFD5-46EF05F05491@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <21A814D8-D13F-4D59-8157-BDE4B65FD72B@marzouki.info> Just seen this message from Bill after having sent my own reply on this subject. Couldn't agree more.. Best, Meryem Le 22 sept. 10 à 09:11, William Drake a écrit : > > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Sep 22 05:43:04 2010 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:43:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe In-Reply-To: References: <201009220234.o8M2YJxF004471@well.com> Message-ID: <86733D36-A727-4D50-9C2F-DE1C35FC601D@marzouki.info> Sorry, I forgot an URL and an additional article worth listing: Le 22 sept. 10 à 11:19, Meryem Marzouki a écrit : > > Next MC-NM meeting, where I'm going to participate, will be held > early next week. EDRI newsletter regularly reports on these > meetings and other CoE activities (http://www.edri.org/edrigram): There is one more article published this year on this topic: > - EDRI report on 2nd MC-NM meeting ('New Media, Search Engines And > Network Neutrality On 2010 CoE Agenda', 7 April 2010) > http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number8.7/coe-new-media-working-group - Opinion on CoE Consultation on the protection of neighbouring rights of broadcasting organisations ('Enditorial: Undead Wipo Treaty Resurrected In Council Of Europe', 10 February, 2010) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number8.3/broadcasting-treaty-council-of- europe And the > - Opinion on developments on CoE Cybercrime Convention > ('Enditorial: The 2001 Coe Cybercrime Conv. More Dangerous Than > Ever', 20 June, 2007) is at: http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.12/cybercrime-convention- dangerous 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Sep 22 07:05:43 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:05:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] FYI Cisco References: <201009220234.o8M2YJxF004471@well.com> <86733D36-A727-4D50-9C2F-DE1C35FC601D@marzouki.info> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0714E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2010/ekits/Evolving_Internet_GBN_Cisco_2010_Aug_rev2.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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Sep 22 08:51:17 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:51:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election In-Reply-To: References: <4C9527E2.3050604@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B9B776B@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956AD079@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Re gender and regional balance; 1st, given that there are just 2 co-coordinators it is impossible to represent all regions simultaneously. So, Jeremy who either represents North America or Asia depending upon whether you look at his present mailing address or his nationality - serving with Rafik or Izumi is fine by me. (I'm guessing next go-round Euro, African or South American candidates might be especially favored by many of us recalling the home address or nationality of the prior coordinators.) 2nd, given that there are just 2 co-coordinator positions, similarly preventing 2 women from ever serving at same time, or 2 men - in my opinion is impractical. It may be a 1 year anomaly more often than not we may more reasonably deal with. (I think it's safe to say that in general 1 man and 1 woman would be preferred, but even saying that makes it sound like we are trying to defend marriage against....what exactly? Seriously, having 2 women as co-coordinators is fine by me, as is 2 men, assuming that is just due to the laws of small numbers, and not ingrained bias.) But of course if there are other candidates of any gender ready to step up now is a good time for them to be nominated.... Lee ________________________________________ From: Bernard Sadaka [sdkaaa at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 3:40 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election Hey All, It was great seeing you in Vilnius, Qusai and Meryem do you have any suggestions for gender balance support? Thank you. All the best, Bernard. - Bernard SADAKA Mobile: +961 3 172377 Twitter: @sdkaaa Website: http://evoliuvo.com Email : sdkaaa at evoliuvo.com, sdkaaa at gmail.com ------------------------------------------------------ DiploFoundation Associate Social Media & Remote Participation Consultant BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer Lebanon On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Qusai AlShatti > wrote: Dear All: I am in agreement with Meryem, Izumi and Rafik are all good qualified candidates and dear friends. But I would support a gender balance for the IGC coordinator. All the best to all candidates, regards, Qusai Al-Shatti On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Meryem Marzouki > wrote: > Dear all, > Izumi and Rafik are both excellent candidates who I would be happy to fully > support, however I keep concerned with diversity. > Since it is Ginger whose term is ending, I would prefer to see one or more > women candidating. > Moreover, I note that both Izumi and Rafik are based in Japan, while Jeremy > is already based in Asia! > Any candidates who would ensure both gender and regional diversity? > Best, > Meryem > Le 20 sept. 10 à 03:05, SAMUELS,Carlton A a écrit : > > Excellent choice. I’m happy to know Izumi has accepted. > > > > Carlton > > > > From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 3:58 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] IGC co-coordinator election > > > > Dear All > > Regarding the election for a new co-coordinator of IGC, I would like to > propose Izumi Aizu as a candidate. > > Izumi has agreed to accept the nomination (after some persuasions :) ) > > Parminder > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Sep 22 08:53:32 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:23:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe In-Reply-To: <14C4DEA5-C328-4232-AFD5-46EF05F05491@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <201009220234.o8M2YJxF004471@well.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956AD078@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <14C4DEA5-C328-4232-AFD5-46EF05F05491@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: 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 george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Wed Sep 22 11:48:18 2010 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:48:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe Message-ID: Thanks, Bill, I agree with Bill's comments. I was a discussant at that workshop, and I didn't think that the material presented by Rolf was worth significant discussion at the time. In fact, when word of such a treaty was first posted on this list, I did not even associate it with the workshop in which I participated. This event has been blown out of proportion. George At 9:11 AM +0200 9/22/10, William Drake wrote: >Still more confused and clueless reportage on IGŠ. > >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, regulationŠit'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 >rightŠ" > >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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Sep 22 13:19:52 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:19:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 6:48 PM, George Sadowsky < george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote: > Thanks, Bill, > > I agree with Bill's comments. I was a discussant at that workshop, and I > didn't think that the material presented by Rolf was worth significant > discussion at the time. In fact, when word of such a treaty was first > posted on this list, I did not even associate it with the workshop in which > I participated. This event has been blown out of proportion. > It probably fed journalists imagination when Vint talked about a "Proliferation Treaty for the Internet" ...perhaps they even conflated the two. -- 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Sep 22 15:37:01 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 21:37:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by In-Reply-To: References: <201009220234.o8M2YJxF004471@well.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100922125755.05eb7860@jefsey.com> Meryem, I hear about discussions and flames on cross border data flows for so long (30+ years) that I am not worried about the world capacity to discuss any treaty before an eternity. Actually until we have some human centered ground for this, i.e. a 31st human right articles about everyone's right to a neutral, protected and freely governed and administered digital empowerment. The difficulty is that the technology is just arriving now to the corresponding development. jfc At 11:19 22/09/2010, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >Le 22 sept. 10 à 09:08, CW Mail a écrit : > >>Louis: Yes. Workshop #60. Presented by Council of Europe. The >>transcript is published. (I went to a different workshop that day) >>I guess that someone on this list can provide additional information. >> >>CW >> >>On 22 Sep 2010, at 04:34, Louis Pouzin wrote: >> >>>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 ? > >Yes, but, for reasons that are beyond my knowledge and understanding, >the news article gives it far higher status than it currently has. >And calling it an "Internet Treaty" is, well, somewhat anticipating, >to say the least. > >This is a first document proposed by an ad hoc group of individual >experts nominated by the CoE to form an "Ad Hoc Advisory Group". And >this document - as well as the process - raises a lot of concerns and >still needs a lot of discussion. >More information about the group is at: >http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/MC-S-CI/ >default_en.asp (MC-S-CI) >NB. EDRI (European Digital Rights) is an observer to this group, that >I'm representing myself. Unfortunately, due to personal reasons, I >missed the first and only formal group meeting on March 1-2 2010, and >EDRI was not invited to the consultation meeting on October 2009, >prior to the formal setting up of the group. As a matter of fact, >EDRI raised strong, though oral, concerns to CoE on the process, and >thus asked for an observer status to this group. > >BTW, EDRI has similar concerns regarding another group, which deals >with "the protection of neighbouring rights of broadcasting >organisations" (MC-S-NR, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/ >media/MC-S-NR/default_en.asp). In this case, EDRI was present at its >first consultation meeting, however, this is due to the fact that the >consultation has started later (January 2010). EDRI has now been >granted an observer status to this group too, but the group is not >formed, and thus has not formally started yet, waiting for the >European Commission mandate to work on this issue (the CoE wont start >without an EC representative to the group). This is a highly >politically sensitive issue. > >Finally, EDRI has an observer status to a third group, on Human >Rights in New Media >(http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/ >MC-NM/default_en.asp). In this case, we fully participate, and find >this group fully legitimate. The group is made up of governments >representatives, together with observers from different NGOs and >professional associations, as well as other institutional bodies >(like the European Commission and other CoE bodies) and States not >members of, but observers to the CoE (well, it's mainly the Vatican, >oooops the Holy Seat, whose representative remains almost silent, >though probably blessing our work;)) > >This group, called MC-NM in CoE jargon, is the one drafting texts >such as CoE Recommendations. It is the continuation of former Group >on Human Rights in the Information Society (MC-S-IS, http:// >www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/MC-S-IS/default_en.asp). >There are no finalized drafts from the MC-NM group yet, since it >started its work at the end of last year, but there is work in >progress on very timely issues, tackling e.g. the protection of human >rights with regards to search engines on the one hand and to social >networks on the other hand. The group is also discussing a >Declaration on network neutrality. >I have to acknowledge that observers have been actually granted full >participation to MC-S-IS and now to MC-NM, and are actually heard >most of the time (except when there is a strong opposition from gov >representatives, who remain the decision makers in the group and, >consequently, the ones accountable for its results). > >Next MC-NM meeting, where I'm going to participate, will be held >early next week. EDRI newsletter regularly reports on these meetings >and other CoE activities (http://www.edri.org/edrigram): > >- EDRI report on 2nd MC-NM meeting ('New Media, Search Engines And >Network Neutrality On 2010 CoE Agenda', 7 April 2010) >http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number8.7/coe-new-media-working-group >- Opinion on 9th MC-S-IS meeting developments ('ENDitorial: CoE - >The Good, the Bad and the Ugly', 9 April 2008) >http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.7/coe-good-bad-ugly >- Opinion on 8th MC-S-IS meeting developments ('Enditorial: Coe - >Content Regulation: Break On Through; Ipr: It's Tricky', 21 November >2007) >http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.22/coe-content-regulation >- Sign Up Edri Statement On Coe Recommendation - Campaign Update (24 >October 2007) >http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.20/campaign-edri-coe-recommendation >- EDRI Statement And Call For Action On New CoE Rec. Failing To >Uphold FoE (10 October, 2007): >http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.19/call-action-foe-rec >- Opinion on developments on CoE Cybercrime Convention ('Enditorial: >The 2001 Coe Cybercrime Conv. More Dangerous Than Ever', 20 June, 2007) >- EDRI report on European regional meeting on the "Ethical dimensions >of the information society" organized by the French Commission for >UNESCO in cooperation with UNESCO and the Council of Europe ('Human >Rights in the Information Society - rediscover the proportionality', >26.09.2007) >http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.18/human-rights-is >- EDRI report on 7th MC-S-IS meeting ('CoE to address the impact of >technical measures on human rights', 12.04.2007): >http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.7/coe-human-rights >- EDRI report on 5th MC-S-IS meeting ('News on CoE activities on >Human Rights in the Information Society', 05.07.2006) >http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.13/hrinfosoc >- EDRI report on 4th MC-S-IS meeting ('CoE works on new instrument on >children empowerment on the net', 15.03.2006): >http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.5/coe >- EDRI report on 2nd MC-S-IS meeting and CoE Pan-European Forum >('Human Rights In The Information Society On CoE Agenda', 21.09.2005): >http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.19/CoE >- EDRI gets observer status to MC-S-IS group ('EDRI Granted Observer >Status In CoE HR Group', 29.06.2005): >http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.13/EDRI >- EDRI comments on CAHSI Document ('Council Of Europe Declaration On >Human Rights And Internet', 24.05.2005): >http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.10/CoE >- EDRI report on 2nd meeting of the Multidisciplinary Ad-hoc >Committee of Experts on the Information Society (CAHSI) ('Council Of >Europe Draft Statement On Human Rights And Internet', 20.04.2005) >http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.8/CoE > >Best, >Meryem Marzouki > >-- >Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France >Email: meryem at marzouki.info >Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr >IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org >EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Sep 22 15:59:51 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:59:51 +0300 Subject: [governance] a good read Message-ID: FYI: http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2010/icts_internet_sd_new_paradigm.pdf For those getting tired of the term "Internet Governance" (like me) please see bottom of page 6: "The term “Internet governance” has been widely used since the World Summit on the Information Society to describe not just the technical management and coordination of the Internet itself (which is sometimes called “narrow Internet governance”), but also the relationship between the Internet and mainstream public policy issues that are affected by it (sometimes called “broad Internet governance”). Both of these types of issues are discussed, for example, in the Internet Governance Forum. IISD believes that the use of the term “Internet governance” for this wide range of issues is increasingly inappropriate, particularly where issues fall primarily in other public policy arenas. IISD therefore prefers to use the term “Internet public policy” for this wider range of issues" -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From meryem at marzouki.info Wed Sep 22 16:38:03 2010 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:38:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] a good read In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8F7CF84A-AAFC-48F3-9250-2FAA58E95718@marzouki.info> I agree that "Internet governance" is probably inappropriate as it leads to many (largely encouraged) ambiguities, but I also think "Internet public policy" doesn't capture the complexity of what is meant - for better or for worse - by "Internet governance", especially in the global context. I attended this workshop co-organized by IISD at IGF and it was clear to me that both IISD and the invited speakers at this workshop still needs to understand what we are talking about, and who's involved in the field. Proposing to use the term "Internet public policy" in this context attests for the misunderstanding. One cannot simply transpose the 'public' and 'public policy' concepts that are defined in a national, sovereign, regalian context, to a transnational, largely privately ordered, context. This has nothing to do with the need for policies oriented towards the general interest or the public interest: it is an issue of how to define the polity in this new context. I'm always puzzled at some people's easy speak of 'transnational democracy': transnational, I understand what this means; powers, I see where they are and even how they transform and recompose; but where the hell is the demos?! "We, the not so happy few"? We should be more careful with concepts. Best, Meryem Le 22 sept. 10 à 21:59, McTim a écrit : > FYI: > > http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2010/icts_internet_sd_new_paradigm.pdf > > For those getting tired of the term "Internet Governance" (like me) > please see bottom of page 6: > > "The term “Internet governance” has been widely used since the World > Summit on the Information Society to describe not just the technical > management and coordination of the Internet itself (which is sometimes > called “narrow Internet governance”), but also the > relationship between the Internet and mainstream public policy issues > that are affected by it (sometimes called “broad Internet > governance”). Both of these types of issues are discussed, > for example, in the Internet Governance Forum. > IISD believes that the use of the term “Internet governance” for this > wide range of issues is increasingly inappropriate, particularly where > issues fall primarily in other public policy arenas. IISD therefore > prefers to use the term “Internet public policy” for this wider range > of issues" > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Sep 22 16:41:58 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:41:58 -0300 Subject: [governance] a good read In-Reply-To: <8F7CF84A-AAFC-48F3-9250-2FAA58E95718@marzouki.info> References: <8F7CF84A-AAFC-48F3-9250-2FAA58E95718@marzouki.info> Message-ID: <4C9A6A16.9040709@cafonso.ca> ICANN, a private non-profit in California, does "public policy"? --c.a. On 09/22/2010 05:38 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > I agree that "Internet governance" is probably inappropriate as it leads > to many (largely encouraged) ambiguities, but I also think "Internet > public policy" doesn't capture the complexity of what is meant - for > better or for worse - by "Internet governance", especially in the global > context. > I attended this workshop co-organized by IISD at IGF and it was clear to > me that both IISD and the invited speakers at this workshop still needs > to understand what we are talking about, and who's involved in the field. > Proposing to use the term "Internet public policy" in this context > attests for the misunderstanding. One cannot simply transpose the > 'public' and 'public policy' concepts that are defined in a national, > sovereign, regalian context, to a transnational, largely privately > ordered, context. This has nothing to do with the need for policies > oriented towards the general interest or the public interest: it is an > issue of how to define the polity in this new context. I'm always > puzzled at some people's easy speak of 'transnational democracy': > transnational, I understand what this means; powers, I see where they > are and even how they transform and recompose; but where the hell is the > demos?! "We, the not so happy few"? > We should be more careful with concepts. > > Best, > Meryem > > Le 22 sept. 10 à 21:59, McTim a écrit : > >> FYI: >> >> http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2010/icts_internet_sd_new_paradigm.pdf >> >> For those getting tired of the term "Internet Governance" (like me) >> please see bottom of page 6: >> >> "The term “Internet governance” has been widely used since the World >> Summit on the Information Society to describe not just the technical >> management and coordination of the Internet itself (which is sometimes >> called “narrow Internet governance”), but also the >> relationship between the Internet and mainstream public policy issues >> that are affected by it (sometimes called “broad Internet >> governance”). Both of these types of issues are discussed, >> for example, in the Internet Governance Forum. >> IISD believes that the use of the term “Internet governance” for this >> wide range of issues is increasingly inappropriate, particularly where >> issues fall primarily in other public policy arenas. IISD therefore >> prefers to use the term “Internet public policy” for this wider range >> of issues" >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Sep 22 17:07:34 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:07:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] a good read In-Reply-To: <4C9A6A16.9040709@cafonso.ca> References: <8F7CF84A-AAFC-48F3-9250-2FAA58E95718@marzouki.info> <4C9A6A16.9040709@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: My personal compromise so far (eg, when I introduce myself to an academic audience not necessarily familiar with the issues we're dealing with here and in a few other arenas) is to say my research field is "Internet *and* Public policy" sometimes adding Internet governance (narrow sense) and Digital identity as sub-items. May not be perfect but... Mawaki On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > ICANN, a private non-profit in California, does "public policy"? > > --c.a. > > > On 09/22/2010 05:38 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> I agree that "Internet governance" is probably inappropriate as it leads >> to many (largely encouraged) ambiguities, but I also think "Internet >> public policy" doesn't capture the complexity of what is meant - for >> better or for worse - by "Internet governance", especially in the global >> context. >> I attended this workshop co-organized by IISD at IGF and it was clear to >> me that both IISD and the invited speakers at this workshop still needs >> to understand what we are talking about, and who's involved in the field. >> Proposing to use the term "Internet public policy" in this context >> attests for the misunderstanding. One cannot simply transpose the >> 'public' and 'public policy' concepts that are defined in a national, >> sovereign, regalian context, to a transnational, largely privately >> ordered, context. This has nothing to do with the need for policies >> oriented towards the general interest or the public interest: it is an >> issue of how to define the polity in this new context. I'm always >> puzzled at some people's easy speak of 'transnational democracy': >> transnational, I understand what this means; powers, I see where they >> are and even how they transform and recompose; but where the hell is the >> demos?! "We, the not so happy few"? >> We should be more careful with concepts. >> >> Best, >> Meryem >> >> Le 22 sept. 10 à 21:59, McTim a écrit : >> >> FYI: >>> >>> http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2010/icts_internet_sd_new_paradigm.pdf >>> >>> For those getting tired of the term "Internet Governance" (like me) >>> please see bottom of page 6: >>> >>> "The term “Internet governance” has been widely used since the World >>> Summit on the Information Society to describe not just the technical >>> management and coordination of the Internet itself (which is sometimes >>> called “narrow Internet governance”), but also the >>> relationship between the Internet and mainstream public policy issues >>> that are affected by it (sometimes called “broad Internet >>> governance”). Both of these types of issues are discussed, >>> for example, in the Internet Governance Forum. >>> IISD believes that the use of the term “Internet governance” for this >>> wide range of issues is increasingly inappropriate, particularly where >>> issues fall primarily in other public policy arenas. IISD therefore >>> prefers to use the term “Internet public policy” for this wider range >>> of issues" >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> >>> McTim >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > 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 Wed Sep 22 17:53:06 2010 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 23:53:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] a good read In-Reply-To: References: <8F7CF84A-AAFC-48F3-9250-2FAA58E95718@marzouki.info> <4C9A6A16.9040709@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <9DCC19ED-42CA-4230-8906-3B86A540BA49@marzouki.info> Le 22 sept. 10 à 23:07, Mawaki Chango a écrit : > My personal compromise so far (eg, when I introduce myself to an > academic audience not necessarily familiar with the issues we're > dealing with here and in a few other arenas) is to say my research > field is "Internet *and* Public policy" Hearing this, I would thus expect you to deal with, inter alia, e- government issues or any other public policy/administration enforced/ conducted through the Internet. However, you would certainly agree that they don't fall under "Internet governance". > sometimes adding Internet governance (narrow sense) Which, up to now, largely remain private policies, whatever is their *impact on* the general public > and Digital identity as sub-items. Is digital identity a policy? And if so, is it a public policy? > May not be perfect but... ...life is hard ...for all of us;)) Meryem > > Mawaki > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Carlos A. Afonso > wrote: > ICANN, a private non-profit in California, does "public policy"? > > --c.a. > > > On 09/22/2010 05:38 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > I agree that "Internet governance" is probably inappropriate as it > leads > to many (largely encouraged) ambiguities, but I also think "Internet > public policy" doesn't capture the complexity of what is meant - for > better or for worse - by "Internet governance", especially in the > global > context. > I attended this workshop co-organized by IISD at IGF and it was > clear to > me that both IISD and the invited speakers at this workshop still > needs > to understand what we are talking about, and who's involved in the > field. > Proposing to use the term "Internet public policy" in this context > attests for the misunderstanding. One cannot simply transpose the > 'public' and 'public policy' concepts that are defined in a national, > sovereign, regalian context, to a transnational, largely privately > ordered, context. This has nothing to do with the need for policies > oriented towards the general interest or the public interest: it is an > issue of how to define the polity in this new context. I'm always > puzzled at some people's easy speak of 'transnational democracy': > transnational, I understand what this means; powers, I see where they > are and even how they transform and recompose; but where the hell > is the > demos?! "We, the not so happy few"? > We should be more careful with concepts. > > Best, > Meryem > > Le 22 sept. 10 à 21:59, McTim a écrit : > > FYI: > > http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2010/icts_internet_sd_new_paradigm.pdf > > For those getting tired of the term "Internet Governance" (like me) > please see bottom of page 6: > > "The term “Internet governance” has been widely used since the World > Summit on the Information Society to describe not just the technical > management and coordination of the Internet itself (which is sometimes > called “narrow Internet governance”), but also the > relationship between the Internet and mainstream public policy issues > that are affected by it (sometimes called “broad Internet > governance”). Both of these types of issues are discussed, > for example, in the Internet Governance Forum. > IISD believes that the use of the term “Internet governance” for this > wide range of issues is increasingly inappropriate, particularly where > issues fall primarily in other public policy arenas. IISD therefore > prefers to use the term “Internet public policy” for this wider range > of issues" > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > 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 sylvia.caras at gmail.com Wed Sep 22 19:41:12 2010 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:41:12 -0700 Subject: [governance] When Machines Kill Message-ID: This seems to me a subset of the governance and standards question, and my sense of unintended consequences of software is stronger than this author's. "While complex robots and drones may not have much, or any, human input at the operational stage, their responses to visual and other stimuli are pre-determined through a series of programs and algorithms." http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20100922.html?DCMP=NWL-cons_legalgrounds ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Sep 22 21:46:23 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 21:46:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] a good read In-Reply-To: <9DCC19ED-42CA-4230-8906-3B86A540BA49@marzouki.info> References: <8F7CF84A-AAFC-48F3-9250-2FAA58E95718@marzouki.info> <4C9A6A16.9040709@cafonso.ca> <9DCC19ED-42CA-4230-8906-3B86A540BA49@marzouki.info> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > ... > > ...life is hard ...for all of us;)) > It sure is! ;) I guess mine is a sort of triangulation between Internet and public policy, the sub-items defining substantive topics or sets of issues pertaining to the former (internet) to the extent that they intersect with the latter (public policy concerns). Well, until further notice... Mawaki > > Meryem > > > Mawaki > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> ICANN, a private non-profit in California, does "public policy"? >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> On 09/22/2010 05:38 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> >>> I agree that "Internet governance" is probably inappropriate as it leads >>> to many (largely encouraged) ambiguities, but I also think "Internet >>> public policy" doesn't capture the complexity of what is meant - for >>> better or for worse - by "Internet governance", especially in the global >>> context. >>> I attended this workshop co-organized by IISD at IGF and it was clear to >>> me that both IISD and the invited speakers at this workshop still needs >>> to understand what we are talking about, and who's involved in the field. >>> Proposing to use the term "Internet public policy" in this context >>> attests for the misunderstanding. One cannot simply transpose the >>> 'public' and 'public policy' concepts that are defined in a national, >>> sovereign, regalian context, to a transnational, largely privately >>> ordered, context. This has nothing to do with the need for policies >>> oriented towards the general interest or the public interest: it is an >>> issue of how to define the polity in this new context. I'm always >>> puzzled at some people's easy speak of 'transnational democracy': >>> transnational, I understand what this means; powers, I see where they >>> are and even how they transform and recompose; but where the hell is the >>> demos?! "We, the not so happy few"? >>> We should be more careful with concepts. >>> >>> Best, >>> Meryem >>> >>> Le 22 sept. 10 à 21:59, McTim a écrit : >>> >>> FYI: >>>> >>>> http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2010/icts_internet_sd_new_paradigm.pdf >>>> >>>> For those getting tired of the term "Internet Governance" (like me) >>>> please see bottom of page 6: >>>> >>>> "The term “Internet governance” has been widely used since the World >>>> Summit on the Information Society to describe not just the technical >>>> management and coordination of the Internet itself (which is sometimes >>>> called “narrow Internet governance”), but also the >>>> relationship between the Internet and mainstream public policy issues >>>> that are affected by it (sometimes called “broad Internet >>>> governance”). Both of these types of issues are discussed, >>>> for example, in the Internet Governance Forum. >>>> IISD believes that the use of the term “Internet governance” for this >>>> wide range of issues is increasingly inappropriate, particularly where >>>> issues fall primarily in other public policy arenas. IISD therefore >>>> prefers to use the term “Internet public policy” for this wider range >>>> of issues" >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> McTim >>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >>>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Sep 22 22:01:35 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:01:35 +1200 Subject: [governance] a good read In-Reply-To: References: <8F7CF84A-AAFC-48F3-9250-2FAA58E95718@marzouki.info> <4C9A6A16.9040709@cafonso.ca> <9DCC19ED-42CA-4230-8906-3B86A540BA49@marzouki.info> Message-ID: Dear All, I prefer the term "Internet Governance" because it is all-encompassing and the danger of shifting to Internet Public Policy is that there is a subtle yet very real danger of removing the voice of the private sector and civil society altogether and whilst all policies have to consider the diverse spectrums such as technical, economic, socio-cultural, political and legal, the fundamental difference is that with a subject as extraterritorial in reach such as the Internet Governance where you have jurisdictions who differ in terms of political systems, political will, capacity to prioritise ICT, varying degrees of harmonisation of policies, different layers of domestic law and international law that affects its treatment of the rainbow of issues that could surface with trading via the internet, or engaging in telemedicine etc etc, it follows that you would need a name that like an umbrella that fully captures the various dichotomies and relational connotations that surface from our new global borderless world. The use of Internet Public Policy as a Term in my view is restrictive. Warm Regards from windy Wellington, New Zealand, Sala On 9/23/10, Mawaki Chango wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Meryem Marzouki > wrote: > >> >> ... >> >> ...life is hard ...for all of us;)) >> > > It sure is! ;) > > I guess mine is a sort of triangulation between Internet and public policy, > the sub-items defining substantive topics or sets of issues pertaining to > the former (internet) to the extent that they intersect with the latter > (public policy concerns). > Well, until further notice... > > Mawaki > > >> >> Meryem >> >> >> Mawaki >> >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> ICANN, a private non-profit in California, does "public policy"? >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> >>> On 09/22/2010 05:38 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >>> >>>> I agree that "Internet governance" is probably inappropriate as it leads >>>> to many (largely encouraged) ambiguities, but I also think "Internet >>>> public policy" doesn't capture the complexity of what is meant - for >>>> better or for worse - by "Internet governance", especially in the global >>>> context. >>>> I attended this workshop co-organized by IISD at IGF and it was clear to >>>> me that both IISD and the invited speakers at this workshop still needs >>>> to understand what we are talking about, and who's involved in the >>>> field. >>>> Proposing to use the term "Internet public policy" in this context >>>> attests for the misunderstanding. One cannot simply transpose the >>>> 'public' and 'public policy' concepts that are defined in a national, >>>> sovereign, regalian context, to a transnational, largely privately >>>> ordered, context. This has nothing to do with the need for policies >>>> oriented towards the general interest or the public interest: it is an >>>> issue of how to define the polity in this new context. I'm always >>>> puzzled at some people's easy speak of 'transnational democracy': >>>> transnational, I understand what this means; powers, I see where they >>>> are and even how they transform and recompose; but where the hell is the >>>> demos?! "We, the not so happy few"? >>>> We should be more careful with concepts. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Meryem >>>> >>>> Le 22 sept. 10 à 21:59, McTim a écrit : >>>> >>>> FYI: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2010/icts_internet_sd_new_paradigm.pdf >>>>> >>>>> For those getting tired of the term "Internet Governance" (like me) >>>>> please see bottom of page 6: >>>>> >>>>> "The term “Internet governance” has been widely used since the World >>>>> Summit on the Information Society to describe not just the technical >>>>> management and coordination of the Internet itself (which is sometimes >>>>> called “narrow Internet governance”), but also the >>>>> relationship between the Internet and mainstream public policy issues >>>>> that are affected by it (sometimes called “broad Internet >>>>> governance”). Both of these types of issues are discussed, >>>>> for example, in the Internet Governance Forum. >>>>> IISD believes that the use of the term “Internet governance” for this >>>>> wide range of issues is increasingly inappropriate, particularly where >>>>> issues fall primarily in other public policy arenas. IISD therefore >>>>> prefers to use the term “Internet public policy” for this wider range >>>>> of issues" >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> McTim >>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >>>>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Sep 22 23:37:29 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 05:37:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] When Machines Kill In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100923043921.05eb8e28@jefsey.com> At 01:41 23/09/2010, Sylvia Caras wrote: >This seems to me a subset of the governance and standards question, >and my sense of unintended consequences of software is stronger than >this author's. Sylvia, this is not a governance but an adminance issue. Adminance is the administration, maintenance, and delivery of the technological means that Governance needs. It was not considered by the WSIS and is progressively understood in real life. The true war and crimes against humanity are carried at the adminance level because, through standards orientation and acceptance, this is where the possible (good or bad) future is decided. In this case the discussion is about true weapons. At the IETF one discusses standards which will influence the world ability to live better or not, and in this way will condition the life of billion of people - without any democratic supervision. RFC 3935: "The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better. [...] The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF. We want the Internet to be useful for communities that share our commitment to openness and fairness. We embrace technical concepts such as decentralized control, edge-user empowerment and sharing of resources, because those concepts resonate with the core values of the IETF community. These concepts have little to do with the technology that's possible, and much to do with the technology that we choose to create." This is why the true "core values of the Internet" ("the constitution is in the code") have been "chosen" by IETF to "influence" the Governance in such a way as to make the Internet work "better" : what does that "better" mean? For who? According to who? This is why the practical possibility to ethically use of the Internet or not has been decided a long ago without ethical consideration when researching the Internet technology with a commercial bias, as documented by RFC 3869 of IAB. RFC 3869 states: "The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble. In addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding source can also affect the content of the research, for example, towards or against the development of open standards, or taking varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols on the other traffic on the Internet." The question could also be: how many people die everyday that a better Internet technology, a better Internet adminance, a better Internet Governance and/or a better Internet neutrality might have directly or indirectly helped to save ? This is the true issue of all the WSIS/IGF discussions and the shared responsibility of lists such as this one. Best 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 23 01:49:27 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:19:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] net neutrality and mobiles Message-ID: <4C9AEA67.805@itforchange.net> Hi All See below more news of continued vertical integration and violation of net neutrality principle in developing countries (wonder how is it in developed countries, and developing countries like Brazil which have a general NN agreement). Customised handsets take one directly to a telecom operator controlled portal, which then would control one's online experience. Enough freebies and utilities will be packed into this portal, to make it attractive and help develop deep dependencies, which is easy to do since the telecom completely controls the channel and there seems to be no one watching over. I hope we could collectively ponder over and debate the implication of this fast changing scenario of wireless Internet on issues of rights, equity and justice. Very soon it will be too late, and the new architecture will be set and petrified. As they say, 'architecture is policy' unless policy comes in early enough to influence the architecture in the right directions. Parminder http://telecomyatra.afaqs.com/news/?sid=1971_Tata+Docomo+Yahoo!+and+Alcatel+form+alliance Tata Docomo has announced the launch of its first co branded mobile handset OneTouch Net in collaboration with Alcatel and Yahoo! The Qwerty device offers one touch access to Tata Docomo's Dive In portal and comes pre loaded with Yahoo!'s services. The phone will be available in two colour combinations - white and lavender, and black and silver. It comes with 80 MB of in built memory, a 2.0 megapixel camera, MP3 player, FM radio and stereo Bluetooth 2.0 technology. "The device is being offered at a price point of just Rs 5,499 and comes with lifetime free Yahoo! Mail and Yahoo! Messenger services", Sunil Tandon, regional head, Tata Docomo said. OneTouch Net will also provide access to services such as My Song, Call Me Tunes, Buddy Chat, My Talkies, Astro Portal, Funzone, Song Book etc. through customised keys on the handset. _____ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 23 01:53:07 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:53:07 +0300 Subject: [governance] net neutrality and mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C9AEA67.805@itforchange.net> References: <4C9AEA67.805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:49 AM, parminder wrote: > Hi All > > See below more news of continued vertical integration and violation of net > neutrality principle in developing countries (wonder how is it in developed > countries It's the same. Handsets always come bundled with crapware, just like most PCs. , and developing countries like Brazil which have a general NN > agreement). > > Customised handsets take one directly to a telecom operator controlled > portal, You mean like Compuserve and AOL in the early days of the commercial Internet? Nothing new under the sun I'm afraid. -- 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 sdkaaa at gmail.com Thu Sep 23 01:59:14 2010 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 05:59:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] a good read In-Reply-To: References: <8F7CF84A-AAFC-48F3-9250-2FAA58E95718@marzouki.info><4C9A6A16.9040709@cafonso.ca><9DCC19ED-42CA-4230-8906-3B86A540BA49@marzouki.info> Message-ID: <1577022846-1285221556-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1124465828-@bda240.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> I couldn't agree more with Sala and add to it the fact that technical community will also be directly excluded if the term Internet public policy is used. Of course there are other institutions for technical communities such as IETF but leaving them outside the scope of IG remains inappropriate. I wonder if the term "Internet Multistakeholder Dialogue" would work? Since there are no DIRECT policy making coming DIRECTLY from IGF (all policies come from other independent institutions having this dialogue at IGF). This term will encompass all players and define a general dialogue about Internet rather then restricting it to governance, policy making or technical, ... At the end, I would like to say that we are trying to use a different term then the term "Internet Governance" while it is an axiom which we are basing all our discussions on! All the best, Bernard. Sent via my BlackBerry® smartphone -----Original Message----- From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:01:35 To: ; Mawaki Chango Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Subject: Re: [governance] a good read Dear All, I prefer the term "Internet Governance" because it is all-encompassing and the danger of shifting to Internet Public Policy is that there is a subtle yet very real danger of removing the voice of the private sector and civil society altogether and whilst all policies have to consider the diverse spectrums such as technical, economic, socio-cultural, political and legal, the fundamental difference is that with a subject as extraterritorial in reach such as the Internet Governance where you have jurisdictions who differ in terms of political systems, political will, capacity to prioritise ICT, varying degrees of harmonisation of policies, different layers of domestic law and international law that affects its treatment of the rainbow of issues that could surface with trading via the internet, or engaging in telemedicine etc etc, it follows that you would need a name that like an umbrella that fully captures the various dichotomies and relational connotations that surface from our new global borderless world. The use of Internet Public Policy as a Term in my view is restrictive. Warm Regards from windy Wellington, New Zealand, Sala On 9/23/10, Mawaki Chango wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Meryem Marzouki > wrote: > >> >> ... >> >> ...life is hard ...for all of us;)) >> > > It sure is! ;) > > I guess mine is a sort of triangulation between Internet and public policy, > the sub-items defining substantive topics or sets of issues pertaining to > the former (internet) to the extent that they intersect with the latter > (public policy concerns). > Well, until further notice... > > Mawaki > > >> >> Meryem >> >> >> Mawaki >> >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> ICANN, a private non-profit in California, does "public policy"? >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> >>> On 09/22/2010 05:38 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >>> >>>> I agree that "Internet governance" is probably inappropriate as it leads >>>> to many (largely encouraged) ambiguities, but I also think "Internet >>>> public policy" doesn't capture the complexity of what is meant - for >>>> better or for worse - by "Internet governance", especially in the global >>>> context. >>>> I attended this workshop co-organized by IISD at IGF and it was clear to >>>> me that both IISD and the invited speakers at this workshop still needs >>>> to understand what we are talking about, and who's involved in the >>>> field. >>>> Proposing to use the term "Internet public policy" in this context >>>> attests for the misunderstanding. One cannot simply transpose the >>>> 'public' and 'public policy' concepts that are defined in a national, >>>> sovereign, regalian context, to a transnational, largely privately >>>> ordered, context. This has nothing to do with the need for policies >>>> oriented towards the general interest or the public interest: it is an >>>> issue of how to define the polity in this new context. I'm always >>>> puzzled at some people's easy speak of 'transnational democracy': >>>> transnational, I understand what this means; powers, I see where they >>>> are and even how they transform and recompose; but where the hell is the >>>> demos?! "We, the not so happy few"? >>>> We should be more careful with concepts. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Meryem >>>> >>>> Le 22 sept. 10 à 21:59, McTim a écrit : >>>> >>>> FYI: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2010/icts_internet_sd_new_paradigm.pdf >>>>> >>>>> For those getting tired of the term "Internet Governance" (like me) >>>>> please see bottom of page 6: >>>>> >>>>> "The term “Internet governance” has been widely used since the World >>>>> Summit on the Information Society to describe not just the technical >>>>> management and coordination of the Internet itself (which is sometimes >>>>> called “narrow Internet governance”), but also the >>>>> relationship between the Internet and mainstream public policy issues >>>>> that are affected by it (sometimes called “broad Internet >>>>> governance”). Both of these types of issues are discussed, >>>>> for example, in the Internet Governance Forum. >>>>> IISD believes that the use of the term “Internet governance” for this >>>>> wide range of issues is increasingly inappropriate, particularly where >>>>> issues fall primarily in other public policy arenas. IISD therefore >>>>> prefers to use the term “Internet public policy” for this wider range >>>>> of issues" >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> McTim >>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >>>>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>> >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 23 02:07:36 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:37:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] net neutrality and mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <4C9AEA67.805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C9AEEA8.5070006@itforchange.net> On Thursday 23 September 2010 11:23 AM, McTim wrote: > >> > agreement). >> > >> > Customised handsets take one directly to a telecom operator controlled >> > portal, >> > You mean like Compuserve and AOL in the early days of the commercial > Internet? Nothing new under the sun I'm afraid. > > Yes, i mean the same..... Only, this time they are much smarter and have done enough to get there act right. In so many ways it is not the same Internet environment as at those early times - it is not the same kinds of possibilities on the Internet and not same kind of services, not the same level of attention paid by all biggies to the Internet system as the only future, and not the same kind of users...... Just to give one example of the very much changed circumstances and the acute consolidation of market power, I quote from a recent email by Vittorio on the At Large mailing list ".....(at least here in Italy) for the generation aged 15-25 Facebook === Internet. Most of them don't even have an email address any more (let alone blogs or personal websites),...." Without early policy intervention, I have no doubt that their (the new Compuserve's and AOL's of the mobile Internet world) model will win out and will be the dominant one in the market.... 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Sep 23 02:35:06 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 07:35:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] a good read In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C9AF51A.8040206@wzb.eu> Hi, while I understand the uneasiness of assembling a broadening field of policy action under an unchanging term, I don't follow IISD's solution. In my view, public policy is just one specific form of governance, not an alternative. What might change in the long run is the other component of the term. Internet may appear to be too narrow to cover all the aspects addressed in this field. Some people now refer to information governance as a broader concept. jeanette On 22.09.2010 20:59, McTim wrote: > FYI: > > http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2010/icts_internet_sd_new_paradigm.pdf > > For those getting tired of the term "Internet Governance" (like me) > please see bottom of page 6: > > "The term “Internet governance” has been widely used since the World > Summit on the Information Society to describe not just the technical > management and coordination of the Internet itself (which is sometimes > called “narrow Internet governance”), but also the > relationship between the Internet and mainstream public policy issues > that are affected by it (sometimes called “broad Internet > governance”). Both of these types of issues are discussed, > for example, in the Internet Governance Forum. > IISD believes that the use of the term “Internet governance” for this > wide range of issues is increasingly inappropriate, particularly where > issues fall primarily in other public policy arenas. IISD therefore > prefers to use the term “Internet public policy” for this wider range > of issues" > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Sep 23 02:38:23 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:38:23 +1000 Subject: [governance] net neutrality and mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C9AEA67.805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: There are some interesting permutations here ­ and just as we seem to be having some difficulties deciding what internet governance means perhaps we also have some difficulties with these new developments deciding what the Internet means. One of the issues is that we consider the Internet to include its content ­ this is obvious from our discussions covering copyright or child safety or a range of other issues as internet policy and/or governance issues. But the same content could be on an internet web site at the same time as it is a television broadcast, a CD, or on the other end of things, a SMS message or a phone call. It stretches things of course if we decide that all of these are actually the internet ­ in that case broadcasting and communications have ceased to exist and there is one ubiquitous media which covers everything in this sphere. So if a piece of content is accessed via a television, is it internet content? Probably not (unless you create a subset of tv content called iptv and decide it is somehow different). And that just creates another set of confusions. Similarly, is content accessed via a mobile phone app internet content ­ even if it is also on the internet (eg Facebook?). If a content database delivers to phones without interfacing with TCP/IP networks at any point (and this is certainly possible) - whats it got to do with the Internet, (even if the same content is simultaneously available on a website)? There are lots of questions here ­ if via my mobile phone I access Facebook from a browser, is that in some way different from a policy point of view to if I access the content via an app from a simultaneously generated database hosted by my mobile carrier ­ and with no internet protocol use whatsoever? I think this is the dilemma we face with converging media and with a loose definition of the internet which includes its content. Its also the problem we face if we define the internet by a certain technical protocol. Old ground, I know ­ but it is becoming increasingly relevant to start to figure out what we mean by the internet (and therefore by internet governance). Wikipedia and most sources still use definitions of computer networks to define the internet - when the world has changed. I cant find a sensible definition out there. Ian Peter From: parminder Reply-To: , parminder Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:19:27 +0530 To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" Subject: [governance] net neutrality and mobiles Hi All See below more news of continued vertical integration and violation of net neutrality principle in developing countries (wonder how is it in developed countries, and developing countries like Brazil which have a general NN agreement). Customised handsets take one directly to a telecom operator controlled portal, which then would control one's online experience. Enough freebies and utilities will be packed into this portal, to make it attractive and help develop deep dependencies, which is easy to do since the telecom completely controls the channel and there seems to be no one watching over. I hope we could collectively ponder over and debate the implication of this fast changing scenario of wireless Internet on issues of rights, equity and justice. Very soon it will be too late, and the new architecture will be set and petrified. As they say, 'architecture is policy' unless policy comes in early enough to influence the architecture in the right directions. Parminder http://telecomyatra.afaqs.com/news/?sid=1971_Tata+Docomo+Yahoo!+and+Alcatel+ form+alliance Tata Docomo has announced the launch of its first co branded mobile handset OneTouch Net in collaboration with Alcatel and Yahoo! The Qwerty device offers one touch access to Tata Docomo's Dive In portal and comes pre loaded with Yahoo!'s services. The phone will be available in two colour combinations - white and lavender, and black and silver. It comes with 80 MB of in built memory, a 2.0 megapixel camera, MP3 player, FM radio and stereo Bluetooth 2.0 technology. "The device is being offered at a price point of just Rs 5,499 and comes with lifetime free Yahoo! Mail and Yahoo! Messenger services", Sunil Tandon, regional head, Tata Docomo said. OneTouch Net will also provide access to services such as My Song, Call Me Tunes, Buddy Chat, My Talkies, Astro Portal, Funzone, Song Book etc. through customised keys on the handset. _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Thu Sep 23 06:46:38 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:46:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google and its policy on requests by governments to block/ remove content/ obtain personal data Message-ID: Dear All I am not sure whether this has been featured on this list - I only half (quarter) follow it. Regards, Rui ----------------------------------------- Transparency Report http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/ Transparency is a core value at Google. As a company we feel it is our responsibility to ensure that we maximize transparency around the flow of information related to our tools and services. We believe that more information means more choice, more freedom and ultimately more power for the individual. We’ve created an interactive map of Government Requeststhat shows the number of government inquiries for information about users and requests for Google to take down or censor content. We hope this step toward greater transparency will help in ongoing discussions about the appropriate scope and authority of government requests. Our interactive Traffic graphs provide information about traffic to Google services around the world. Each graph shows historic traffic patterns for a given country/region and service. By illustrating outages, this tool visualizes disruptions in the free flow of information, whether it's a government blocking information or a cable being cut. We hope this raw data will help facilitate studies about service outages and disruptions. Transparency Report: Government Requests http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/ Like other technology and communications companies, we regularly receive requests from government agencies around the world to remove content from our services, or provide information about users of our services and products. This map shows the number of requests that we received in six-month blocks with certain limitations[takes you the the FAQ - Rui]. We’re still learning the best way to collect and present this information. We’ll continue to improve this tool and fine-tune the types of data we display. Here, the FAQ on the policy: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/faq.html#governmentrequestsfaq -- _________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ àáâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Sep 23 07:33:12 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 04:33:12 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] T-Mobile Claims Right to Censor Text Messages Message-ID: <8F223E8AA0354BDD9C6841FE314702C3@userPC> -----Original Message----- From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 9:30 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] T-Mobile Claims Right to Censor Text Messages http://gizmodo.com/5645446/t+mobile-claims-right-to-censor-text-messages ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/125975-1ee5912c Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=125975&id_secret=125975-23791a65 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=125975&id_secret=125975-8f271 c78 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com !DSPAM:2676,4c9ad879308683499922840! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Thu Sep 23 07:55:48 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:55:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] T-Mobile Claims Right to Censor Text Messages In-Reply-To: <8F223E8AA0354BDD9C6841FE314702C3@userPC> References: <8F223E8AA0354BDD9C6841FE314702C3@userPC> Message-ID: Michael Your headline is extremely misleading. Besides, on the list, we are primarily concerned with individuals and how things affect you and me. So, before reading the article, most are likely to interpret your heading to mean censoring of normal person to person messages. That is not the case. If you read the article, you will see that T-Mobile is not censoring anything - it is opting not to accept a client. It is a commercial decision. Any newspaper, magazine, radio or tv station has the right to accept or turn down a client seeking an avenue to place its advertising. Naturally T-Mobile is concerned about being associated with a client advertising marijuana, albeit for medicinal purposes. Regards, Rui 2010/9/23 Michael Gurstein > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 9:30 PM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] T-Mobile Claims Right to Censor Text Messages > > > http://gizmodo.com/5645446/t+mobile-claims-right-to-censor-text-messages > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/125975-1ee5912c > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=125975&id_secret=125975-23791a65 > Unsubscribe Now: > > https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=125975&id_secret=125975-8f271 > c78 > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > !DSPAM:2676,4c9ad879308683499922840! > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- _________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ àáâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Sep 23 09:02:22 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:02:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] free53.org [was net neutrality and mobiles] In-Reply-To: References: <4C9AEA67.805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100923124633.05eb8f70@jefsey.com> As Stephane Bortzmeyer underlines it in his blog, the internet (whatever the confusing or not description that can be given of this network centric passive content communication stratum of the world digital ecosystem) is dependent on its DNS neutrality. This means on the respect of Port 53 (the DNS port). For different reasons port 53 is under commercial and political "good will" care and the DNS traffic may become "massaged": (1) by ISPs outside of the user's computer and (2) by benevolent IDNA2008 user side applications. This means that you may use a namespace which is not the one you expect. If some ones wants to discuss and lobby in that area, I have protected the "free53.org" domain name and keep it at their disposal. 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 kichango at gmail.com Thu Sep 23 09:02:20 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:02:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] a good read In-Reply-To: <4C9AF51A.8040206@wzb.eu> References: <4C9AF51A.8040206@wzb.eu> Message-ID: To address more specifically (as opposed to my previous posts in this thread) the suggestion of Internet public policy vs Internet governance, I'd generally agree with the objections raised so far: there are many more moving parts to governance than you'd have with public policy in general, and more particularly when it comes to Internet. Also, I concur that the development and implementation of public policy is just a specific form of governance among others. In reality, the mere fact that 'governance' by definition is readily open to a multistakeholder exercise, which is not necessarily the case for public policy making, should be enough to put the IISD's suggestion to rest. But allow me address some of the previous arguments. First, there certainly is something out there that deserves the name of IG. Second, ICANN, IETF, W3C, IETF, etc. do not trade or are not designed to trade in public policy regarding the Internet. So if the label IG is not satisfying talking about the activities conducted by those bodies and their significance to the Internet globally, IPP is certainly not better in that role. Second, IGF is another beast ...still evolving, maybe. At face value, the thing itself is a global agora, an open forum to whomever it may concern to participate in (and yes, dialogue and debates are the sort of things that happen in that kind of places) etc. I'll let others try a comprehensive definition of its content (what is talked about, which may not exactly coincide with what is effected) but it seems to me it will have to include IG as well as IPP issues, even though the Forum does not make such policy. Now, if we're looking for an alternative name for IG as subject area, I'm not sure 'Information governance' is the most fitting. Key words are: network, information and communication. I understand 'information' may be the most ubiquitous of the three in terms of use for defining our era (eg, information revolution, society, etc.) But I wonder if 'Network governance' would not be a better choice, Network being a shorthand for (global) 'information and communication networks' as it is the new network diagram and architecture that has made the whole thing revolutionary, not information per se that has been with us forever. Noting that IT governance has already been captured by the corporate world (besides, the T might sound too exclusive), other options may include: 'IP governance' (IP in generic sense) and 'Internet in global governance'. But then again, in view of these results, 'global internet governance' was not such a bad candidate after all! Best, Mawaki On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:35 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > > while I understand the uneasiness of assembling a broadening field of > policy action under an unchanging term, I don't follow IISD's solution. In > my view, public policy is just one specific form of governance, not an > alternative. What might change in the long run is the other component of the > term. Internet may appear to be too narrow to cover all the aspects > addressed in this field. Some people now refer to information governance as > a broader concept. > > jeanette > > > On 22.09.2010 20:59, McTim wrote: > >> FYI: >> >> http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2010/icts_internet_sd_new_paradigm.pdf >> >> For those getting tired of the term "Internet Governance" (like me) >> please see bottom of page 6: >> >> "The term “Internet governance” has been widely used since the World >> Summit on the Information Society to describe not just the technical >> management and coordination of the Internet itself (which is sometimes >> called “narrow Internet governance”), but also the >> relationship between the Internet and mainstream public policy issues >> that are affected by it (sometimes called “broad Internet >> governance”). Both of these types of issues are discussed, >> for example, in the Internet Governance Forum. >> IISD believes that the use of the term “Internet governance” for this >> wide range of issues is increasingly inappropriate, particularly where >> issues fall primarily in other public policy arenas. IISD therefore >> prefers to use the term “Internet public policy” for this wider range >> of issues" >> >> ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > 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 Sep 23 09:02:58 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 18:32:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe In-Reply-To: References: <201009220234.o8M2YJxF004471@well.com> Message-ID: <4C9B5002.1080008@itforchange.net> Hi All Is it possible to get a copy of the document that was circulated at the workshop # 60 held by CoE on the work of the expert group on cross border Internet. From the TOR document of the expert committee I have, this looks a very promising effort and I greatly look forward to the outcomes. It seems to address very well all key cross border issue - managing system security and stability, human rights on the Internet, cross border net neutrality and the global public value of the Internet. Would like to see how this effort connects to the open consultation on enhanced cooperation that has to take place before the end of the year. Everton Lucero of Brazil made the most important point (i read the transcript) at the workshop that it is important to get all countries involved right from the very start in any such discussion on global Internet policy frameworks - whether hard or soft. The danger is that we seem to be going right down the path of cyber security treaty and the ACTA, whereby there is this new tendency of some more powerful countries negotiating treaties etc among themselves on issues and areas that have by default global application, and then offer them to other countries to opt-on, if they so please. Mostly, at least in the long run, there is no option. In the plenary on 'IG for development' the issue of equitable participation from all countries in global IG came up as perhaps the most prominent issue (atleast, in my view). We need participation of all, not just a selective stakeholderism. One of course has no problem with regional groups discussing about and negotiating their own policy frameworks, but the overall context has to be kept in mind. And this overall context at present is the fact that no progress is being made vis a vis the WSIS mandated process of enhanced cooperation, we need to know and understand why, and come out with our respective positions on taking the mandated process ahead, after, and as a consequence of, the slated open consultation enhanced cooperation. I propose that the Caucus, as a global progressive civil society IG organization, makes a statement calling for participation of all stakeholders of all countries in a global process dealing with the kind of issues that the CoE process is dealing with, and that the respective regional and national (like the Brazilian one) processes feed into such a global process. Parminder On Wednesday 22 September 2010 12:38 PM, CW Mail wrote: > Louis: Yes. Workshop #60. Presented by Council of Europe. The > transcript is published. (I went to a different workshop that day) > I guess that someone on this list can provide additional information. > > CW > > > On 22 Sep 2010, at 04:34, Louis Pouzin wrote: > >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 23 09:31:06 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:01:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956AD078@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <201009220234.o8M2YJxF004471@well.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956AD078@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4C9B569A.8090705@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 22 September 2010 08:29 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. > True, I keep hoping that at least civil society actors are rather less circumspect about upsetting powers and could take a lead on developing some global principles for IG, as well as come up with workable institutional options regarding them. To take such lead will the best way to get our perspectives in. The forthcoming open consultation on enhanced cooperation is a good point to start. parminder > ________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Thu Sep 23 10:53:52 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:53:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] T-Mobile Claims Right to Censor Text Messages In-Reply-To: References: <8F223E8AA0354BDD9C6841FE314702C3@userPC> Message-ID: Actually, the headline is not really so misleading. What T-Mobile reserves the "discretion" to do is to require pre-approval of every PROGRAM for short-code text messaging. This is not a VENDOR approval, but a right to reject classes or types of messaging from already-approved short code messaging providers. Thus, the vendor mentioned in the article was terminated as a vendor because they signed up a medical marijuana dispensary for short code services that can not normally result in any spam. That's censorship based on content. This review of the content of short code advertising campaigns with the discretion to reject them (without any standards being mentioned here to constrain the discretion) is worse than blacking out certain words or sentences-- because such limited deletions are transparent and at least some communication is allowed. T-Mobile's policy wipes out entire classes of speech that it doesn't like, and it is by no means limited to a claim of "illegal" speech -- T-Mobile claims "Discretion" to reject whatever it wants, and it's not at all limited to what may possibly be a legal problem. Moreover, T-Mobile does NOT review each marketing campaign - it claims the discretion to Require Pre-APproval, and that is obviously triggered by the possibility of controversial speech like medical marijuana even in a medium that when normally functioning with short codes has no spam in it. The key paragraph in the article says as follows: [T-Mobile has been sued by] "a texting service claiming T-Mobile stopped servicing its "short code" clients after it signed up a California medical marijuana dispensary. In a court filing, T-Mobile said it had the right to pre-approve EZ Texting's clientele..." And T-Mobile's brief claims that T-Mobile: "has discretion to require pre-approval for any short-code marketing campaigns run on its network, and to enforce its guidelines by terminating programs for which a content provider failed to obtain the necessary approval." Censorship is a fair word, even if the reasonable opinions of others may wish for different word choice. They might be analogous to T-Mobile wishing for different words in others' text messages. Paul Lehto, J.D. On 9/23/10, Rui Correia wrote: > Michael > > Your headline is extremely misleading. Besides, on the list, we are > primarily concerned with individuals and how things affect you and me. So, > before reading the article, most are likely to interpret your heading to > mean censoring of normal person to person messages. That is not the case. > > If you read the article, you will see that T-Mobile is not censoring > anything - it is opting not to accept a client. It is a commercial decision. > Any newspaper, magazine, radio or tv station has the right to accept or turn > down a client seeking an avenue to place its advertising. Naturally T-Mobile > is concerned about being associated with a client advertising marijuana, > albeit for medicinal purposes. > > Regards, > > Rui > > 2010/9/23 Michael Gurstein > >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 9:30 PM >> To: ip >> Subject: [IP] T-Mobile Claims Right to Censor Text Messages >> >> >> http://gizmodo.com/5645446/t+mobile-claims-right-to-censor-text-messages >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/125975-1ee5912c >> Modify Your Subscription: >> https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=125975&id_secret=125975-23791a65 >> Unsubscribe Now: >> >> https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=125975&id_secret=125975-8f271 >> c78 >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >> >> >> !DSPAM:2676,4c9ad879308683499922840! >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > _________________________ > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > àáâãçéêíóôõúç > -- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 23 12:39:08 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:39:08 +0300 Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe In-Reply-To: <4C9B569A.8090705@itforchange.net> References: <201009220234.o8M2YJxF004471@well.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956AD078@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4C9B569A.8090705@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:31 PM, parminder wrote: > > > On Wednesday 22 September 2010 08:29 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. > > > True, I keep hoping that at least civil society actors are rather less > circumspect about upsetting powers and could take a lead on developing some > global principles for IG, as well as come up with workable institutional > options regarding them. To take such lead will the best way to get our > perspectives in. and then have them promptly ignored when it came to intergovernmental negotiation time?? No thanks, not in my name anyway. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Sep 23 12:48:32 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:48:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe In-Reply-To: References: <201009220234.o8M2YJxF004471@well.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956AD078@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4C9B569A.8090705@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956AD09A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Thanks for keeping an open mind - and confirming my recollection of our prior not-so-enthusiastic reception, McTim. ; ) ________________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:39 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:31 PM, parminder wrote: > > > On Wednesday 22 September 2010 08:29 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. > > > True, I keep hoping that at least civil society actors are rather less > circumspect about upsetting powers and could take a lead on developing some > global principles for IG, as well as come up with workable institutional > options regarding them. To take such lead will the best way to get our > perspectives in. and then have them promptly ignored when it came to intergovernmental negotiation time?? No thanks, not in my name anyway. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 23 14:19:26 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:19:26 +0300 Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956AD09A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <201009220234.o8M2YJxF004471@well.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956AD078@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4C9B569A.8090705@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956AD09A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Lee, On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Thanks for keeping an open mind - and confirming my recollection of our prior not-so-enthusiastic reception, McTim. ; ) You are most welcome. Do you really want to give governments MORE power over the Internet? Here is a glimpse of that dystopia: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130052701 -- 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 iza at anr.org Thu Sep 23 15:25:48 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 04:25:48 +0900 Subject: [governance] Continuation of IGF and CSTD Working Group Message-ID: Hi, I could not attend the CSTD consultation on the Continuation of IGF in Vilnius, and tried to find any report. Here is a very good summary and observation by Anriette, worth to read. http://www.apc.org/en/blog/my-comments-during-discussion-igf10-cstd-working-g Is there any other news, on how CSTD will organize the working group in October and how we, IGC, should/can engage with it? 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Sep 23 16:08:00 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 01:08:00 +0500 Subject: [governance] Continuation of IGF and CSTD Working Group In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Izumi, You can follow the live coverage recording of the Consultation here: http://webcast.intgovforum.org/ondemand/ and watch it as it happened. -- Best Fouad On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Hi, > I could not attend the CSTD consultation on the Continuation of IGF in > Vilnius, and tried to find any report. > > Here is a very good summary and observation by Anriette, worth to read. > > http://www.apc.org/en/blog/my-comments-during-discussion-igf10-cstd-working-g > > Is there any other news, on how CSTD will organize the working group > in October and how we, IGC, should/can engage with it? > > best, > > izumi > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Sep 23 18:36:23 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:36:23 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: New online publication - Convergence In-Reply-To: <201009231518.o8NFINlX006344@smtp2.e-mango.com> References: <201009231518.o8NFINlX006344@smtp2.e-mango.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: e-pubs at int-bar.org Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:16:54 GMT Subject: New online publication - Convergence To: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Dear members The new online publication of the Intellectual Property, Communications and Technology section, Convergence, is now ready for section members to access. Click on the link below to view it: http://www.ibanet.org/Publications/Convergence/contents.aspx You will need your IBA membership details to login (set as your family name and IBA membership number). To retrieve forgotten sign-in details, click on the following link: http://www.ibanet.org/Access/ForgottenDetails.aspx. The publication includes articles on: the Google Earth controversy; Puma's plight on trademark infringement; and anti-tobacco legislation in Turkey. The online Convergence aims to better reflect the demands of this area of law and the needs of the section's membership. The publication can now engage with the fast-paced and constantly evolving world of law relating to communications, technology, intellectual property and arts and culture more dynamically. Submissions, comments or questions are always welcome and should be sent to editor at int-bar.org. Kind regards Lucy Winder Senior Content Editor, IBA -- Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro P.O.Box 17862 Suva Fiji Islands Cell: +679 9982851 Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj "Wisdom is far better than riches." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Sep 24 13:29:05 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 19:29:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9447101F-7ACC-492B-9BAA-0ECA9BFF3EF8@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi I'm a bit behind on the cross-border mail flow.... On Sep 22, 2010, at 5:48 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > I agree with Bill's comments. I was a discussant at that workshop, and I didn't think that the material presented by Rolf was worth significant discussion at the time. Here we disagree George. I think the initiative merits discussion, and I've been doing that with the group since the Spring. But as I said, there are issues that would have to be worked through to make it clearer and potentially supportable, and even if that were to happen the political prognosis would be fuzzy. Can't do much about the latter, but the former could be tackled so we know either way if there's a there there. Part of the problem derives from the origins. Following the resolution adopted at Reykjavik in May 2009, the Committee of Ministers called for the elaboration of new legal instruments on cross-border flows of Internet traffic and protection of resources critical to net stability, which then led to formation of the Ad-hoc Advisory Group that generated the paper in question. Normally, when a new set of challenges is identified that may merit international cooperation, it's desirable to follow a logical sequence in which the challenges are well specified, the range of options for addressing them are laid out and subjected to cost/benefit analysis, and then possible ways forward are identified for discussion—all with transparency and public engagement along the way. But the ministers seemed to skip to the end and say, let's go for a new convention and get some experts to figure out what it's really about. This seems a bit cart before the horse, like the Framework Convention; the form chosen should follow from a careful specification of the function to be served. It may well be that one could address whatever the concerns are through other. less heavy mechanisms, but a conversation about that isn't happening. The ministers seem to want to position COE as a body that makes Internet governance treaties, as per the persistent invocations at IGF meetings of the cybercrime convention and other instruments governments outside the region are invited to join. Given its human rights orientation, multistakeholder orientation, nice staff, and the people involved in the drafting group, one may feel inclined to welcome such an effort, but that shouldn't mean just signing on to stuff without thinking it through. There are certainly good things in the draft document. Who could argue with these guiding principles: 1. Protection of fundamental rights and freedoms 2. Multistakeholderism 3. Universality of the Internet 4. Stability and security 5. Empowerment of Internet users 6. Openness and interoperability of the Internet 7. Network Neutrality (end-to-end principle) 8. Decentralised management responsibility 9. Development and overcoming the digital divide 10. Cultural and linguistic diversity But here's where I get stuck: 11. Responsibilities of states Which gets spelled out in the second section of the paper, and includes, inter alia, that states should: take take all reasonable measures to ascertain whether activities involving risk of causing significant transboundary disruption to the stability, security and resilience of network resources are taking place within their jurisdiction, assess the possible adverse effects or consequences that such activities may have and provide prior and timely notification and relevant information to potentially affected states; take appropriate measures to prevent Internet users’ involvement in cyber attacks and other forms of malicious use; establish monitoring mechanisms to implement these provisions; and be responsible for their international obligations, including with respect to liability. In short, states would take on legally codified mutual responsibility to each other—and potentially be subject to liability for damages---to ensure that stuff doesn't happen within their territories that can affect information flow elsewhere. That might sound reasonable in principle, but consider what it could entail in practice. For example, signatories would have strong incentives to significantly expand the scope and depth of their surveillance in order to reduce the risk they'll be held accountable if some miscreant sets loose a bit of malware on the world. There's already rampant state-building securitization going on, do we want to advance it by making states responsible to each other to control every teenage hacker etc? Moreover, given that this "unapproved" behavior is going on all the time everywhere, wouldn't this risk unleashing a torrent of consultations and maybe lawsuits? Earlier papers in the process drew heavily on environmental law and liability for cross-border pollution as a starting point, but one wonders if the parallel isn't a little inexact. And then there's other stuff like how to define what constitutes harm that a state should be obliged to prevent, mitigate, take liability and make redress for; is it reasonable to hold states responsible for any and all private activities within their jurisdiction that could conceivably have negative cross border effects; what mechanisms of monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution and the like would be appropriate; how does one balance the priority of human rights, net neutrality, etc with the implied surveillance; is it reasonable to expect that developing countries could meet the sort of requirements envisaged, and what happens if a state fails to fully discharge it duties; is it likely that other non-continental democracies with different legal arrangements and political configurations would sign up for such an effort; and so on… Historically, the mutual responsibility provisions of international telecom law were used to strengthen state power and monopolies at the expense of competition and openness. It's not obvious you'd get a notably better outcome this time. Maybe if it were just a soft law thing, normative… Anyway, I'd think these issues merit thinking through rather than dismissing the whole effort ex ante. Cheers, Bill > In fact, when word of such a treaty was first posted on this list, I did not even associate it with the workshop in which I participated. This event has been blown out of proportion. > > George > > At 9:11 AM +0200 9/22/10, William Drake wrote: >> Still more confused and clueless reportage on IGŠ. >> >> 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, regulationŠit'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 rightŠ" >> >> 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 *********************************************************** 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 Fri Sep 24 13:54:36 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 19:54:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] a good read In-Reply-To: References: <4C9AF51A.8040206@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <31A0060A-2933-4873-8443-BDDA619698D5@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Two more cents: The circa 2004 language of "broad" vs "narrow" definitions of IG is misleading and will hopefully fade away at some point. On the one hand, there is nothing remotely narrow about the range of issues and institutions that are supposedly entailed by the "narrow" definition. On the other hand, the way the distinction gets used, to the extent that it still does, seems to imply that what's under the narrow umbrella is the important real deal IG, while what's under the broad umbrella is some sort of murky hodgepodge of miscellaneous stuff that may or may not be important and IG. This is especially so if one conceives of what's under the "broad" umbrella as "the relationship between the Internet and mainstream public policy issues that are affected by it," which can mean just about anything (is the conduct of electoral campaigns Internet governance? this is certainly a mainstream public policy issue affected by the Internet…). If one thinks that "broad IG" refers to everything and hence nothing, then it's easy to agree we shouldn't use the term anymore. The problem is, there are in fact consequential shared rule systems pertaining to intellectual property, digital trade, global e-commerce, "information security"/cybercrime, cross-border information flow, privacy and so on, and it was with these kinds of governance systems in mind that people argued for a definition that was broader than just names and numbers. The understanding of what is IG is one of the arenas in which actual progress can be noted due to WSIS, IGF, etc. It'd be a pity if we were to revert to the confusion of the period prior. Best, Bill On Sep 23, 2010, at 3:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > To address more specifically (as opposed to my previous posts in this thread) the suggestion of Internet public policy vs Internet governance, I'd generally agree with the objections raised so far: there are many more moving parts to governance than you'd have with public policy in general, and more particularly when it comes to Internet. Also, I concur that the development and implementation of public policy is just a specific form of governance among others. In reality, the mere fact that 'governance' by definition is readily open to a multistakeholder exercise, which is not necessarily the case for public policy making, should be enough to put the IISD's suggestion to rest. But allow me address some of the previous arguments. > > First, there certainly is something out there that deserves the name of IG. Second, ICANN, IETF, W3C, IETF, etc. do not trade or are not designed to trade in public policy regarding the Internet. So if the label IG is not satisfying talking about the activities conducted by those bodies and their significance to the Internet globally, IPP is certainly not better in that role. > > Second, IGF is another beast ...still evolving, maybe. At face value, the thing itself is a global agora, an open forum to whomever it may concern to participate in (and yes, dialogue and debates are the sort of things that happen in that kind of places) etc. I'll let others try a comprehensive definition of its content (what is talked about, which may not exactly coincide with what is effected) but it seems to me it will have to include IG as well as IPP issues, even though the Forum does not make such policy. > > Now, if we're looking for an alternative name for IG as subject area, I'm not sure 'Information governance' is the most fitting. Key words are: network, information and communication. I understand 'information' may be the most ubiquitous of the three in terms of use for defining our era (eg, information revolution, society, etc.) But I wonder if 'Network governance' would not be a better choice, Network being a shorthand for (global) 'information and communication networks' as it is the new network diagram and architecture that has made the whole thing revolutionary, not information per se that has been with us forever. Noting that IT governance has already been captured by the corporate world (besides, the T might sound too exclusive), other options may include: 'IP governance' (IP in generic sense) and 'Internet in global governance'. But then again, in view of these results, 'global internet governance' was not such a bad candidate after all! > > Best, > > Mawaki > > > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:35 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > > while I understand the uneasiness of assembling a broadening field of policy action under an unchanging term, I don't follow IISD's solution. In my view, public policy is just one specific form of governance, not an alternative. What might change in the long run is the other component of the term. Internet may appear to be too narrow to cover all the aspects addressed in this field. Some people now refer to information governance as a broader concept. > > jeanette > > > On 22.09.2010 20:59, McTim wrote: > FYI: > > http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2010/icts_internet_sd_new_paradigm.pdf > > For those getting tired of the term "Internet Governance" (like me) > please see bottom of page 6: > > "The term “Internet governance” has been widely used since the World > Summit on the Information Society to describe not just the technical > management and coordination of the Internet itself (which is sometimes > called “narrow Internet governance”), but also the > relationship between the Internet and mainstream public policy issues > that are affected by it (sometimes called “broad Internet > governance”). Both of these types of issues are discussed, > for example, in the Internet Governance Forum. > IISD believes that the use of the term “Internet governance” for this > wide range of issues is increasingly inappropriate, particularly where > issues fall primarily in other public policy arenas. IISD therefore > prefers to use the term “Internet public policy” for this wider range > of issues" > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 24 16:26:34 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 08:26:34 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IBA Business Law International - publishing opportunities In-Reply-To: <201009241411.o8OEBgZ6027804@smtp2.e-mango.com> References: <201009241411.o8OEBgZ6027804@smtp2.e-mango.com> Message-ID: Dear All, If anyone has any publications or articles that they would like published relating to cybercrime, security or any issue delving in extraterritorial jurisdictions, please send your emails directly to me (salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com) Sala ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: e-pubs at int-bar.org Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:10:12 GMT Subject: IBA Business Law International - publishing opportunities To: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com As the IBA Annual Conference in Vancouver is fast approaching, we would like to remind you of the opportunity for publication available to your committee members in Business Law International. BLI, published three times a year, has become one of the leading international business law journals with wide and varied readership of over 15,000 members of the commercial, legal and academic communities. The journal aims to publish articles which break new ground on legal issues, providing timely, in-depth discussion of current developments. As such, it provides a great opportunity for LPD members to enhance their reputation by contributing to a well-established journal. Articles with a cross-border and/or multijurisdictional focus will be of particular interest. All articles are peer-reviewed by leading experts in the field to ensure that the journal maintains its reputation as one of the most respected law journals published today. For more information, guidelines for contributors or to submit an article for consideration, please contact the Commissioning Editor Paul Crick at paulcrick at mac.com or the Senior Content Editor with responsibility for commercial law, Adam Smith at adam.smith at int-bar.org. Could we ask you please to emphasise this opportunity within your committee, both at your committee?s general meeting in Vancouver and at any sessions you are chairing or participating in. Please also let us know of any papers, or presentations which could be developed into articles, delivered at the conference that you feel deserve a wider audience through BLI and we will be happy to follow up with the contributor. The LPD officers are keen to promote BLI as the IBA's pre-eminent vehicle to showcase the credentials of its members. We hope that members of your committee will consider contributing to future issues of Business Law International. With all good wishes, Wayne McArdle and Audley Sheppard, Editors Paul Crick, Commissioning Editor Adam Smith, Senior Content Editor Business Law International (www.ibanet.org/Publications/publications_business_law_international.aspx) -- Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro P.O.Box 17862 Suva Fiji Islands Cell: +679 9982851 Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj "Wisdom is far better than riches." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Sep 24 17:03:29 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 09:03:29 +1200 Subject: [governance] a good read In-Reply-To: <31A0060A-2933-4873-8443-BDDA619698D5@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4C9AF51A.8040206@wzb.eu> <31A0060A-2933-4873-8443-BDDA619698D5@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Hmmm, Jeanette interesting thoughts....in relation to information governance, why I think internet governance is a more endearing term is that (aside from my past comments on the subject) the term internet covers:- 1)Backhaul (global submarine cable networks, fiber networks, radio waves, satellite technology via which information is carried including how this is governed in the various jurisdictions (regulatory capacity, Competition authority determinations that make internet accessible or not, degree of market liberalisation, nature of competition etc; 2)ICT prioritisation within the national agenda (whether states have a governance framework in terms of coherent ICT plans that address universal service, access, harmonisation of national policies, regional policies eg. antidumping laws, product liability, issues of standardisation whether product related or quality of service issues; 3)Treatment of content, issues of privacy and security are all determined by the type of government, its form and preferred philosophical base etc... These are all indicators to me of why the Term Internet Governance should remain, what will address the debate behind...advocates who argue that the term "IG" should change would be to have the issues, crystallised and placed in systematic threads...when I hear the term Information Governance, i think of point 3 in my email. We all have different paradigms and they are determined by our areas of expertise, but it is critical when discussing issues of massive philosophical implications that we address the issue holistically. Warm Regards from Auckland, Sala On 9/25/10, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Two more cents: The circa 2004 language of "broad" vs "narrow" definitions > of IG is misleading and will hopefully fade away at some point. On the one > hand, there is nothing remotely narrow about the range of issues and > institutions that are supposedly entailed by the "narrow" definition. On > the other hand, the way the distinction gets used, to the extent that it > still does, seems to imply that what's under the narrow umbrella is the > important real deal IG, while what's under the broad umbrella is some sort > of murky hodgepodge of miscellaneous stuff that may or may not be important > and IG. This is especially so if one conceives of what's under the "broad" > umbrella as "the relationship between the Internet and mainstream public > policy issues that are affected by it," which can mean just about anything > (is the conduct of electoral campaigns Internet governance? this is > certainly a mainstream public policy issue affected by the Internet…). If > one thinks that "broad IG" refers to everything and hence nothing, then it's > easy to agree we shouldn't use the term anymore. The problem is, there are > in fact consequential shared rule systems pertaining to intellectual > property, digital trade, global e-commerce, "information > security"/cybercrime, cross-border information flow, privacy and so on, and > it was with these kinds of governance systems in mind that people argued for > a definition that was broader than just names and numbers. > > The understanding of what is IG is one of the arenas in which actual > progress can be noted due to WSIS, IGF, etc. It'd be a pity if we were to > revert to the confusion of the period prior. > > Best, > > Bill > > > On Sep 23, 2010, at 3:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> To address more specifically (as opposed to my previous posts in this >> thread) the suggestion of Internet public policy vs Internet governance, >> I'd generally agree with the objections raised so far: there are many more >> moving parts to governance than you'd have with public policy in general, >> and more particularly when it comes to Internet. Also, I concur that the >> development and implementation of public policy is just a specific form of >> governance among others. In reality, the mere fact that 'governance' by >> definition is readily open to a multistakeholder exercise, which is not >> necessarily the case for public policy making, should be enough to put the >> IISD's suggestion to rest. But allow me address some of the previous >> arguments. >> >> First, there certainly is something out there that deserves the name of >> IG. Second, ICANN, IETF, W3C, IETF, etc. do not trade or are not designed >> to trade in public policy regarding the Internet. So if the label IG is >> not satisfying talking about the activities conducted by those bodies and >> their significance to the Internet globally, IPP is certainly not better >> in that role. >> >> Second, IGF is another beast ...still evolving, maybe. At face value, the >> thing itself is a global agora, an open forum to whomever it may concern >> to participate in (and yes, dialogue and debates are the sort of things >> that happen in that kind of places) etc. I'll let others try a >> comprehensive definition of its content (what is talked about, which may >> not exactly coincide with what is effected) but it seems to me it will >> have to include IG as well as IPP issues, even though the Forum does not >> make such policy. >> >> Now, if we're looking for an alternative name for IG as subject area, I'm >> not sure 'Information governance' is the most fitting. Key words are: >> network, information and communication. I understand 'information' may be >> the most ubiquitous of the three in terms of use for defining our era (eg, >> information revolution, society, etc.) But I wonder if 'Network >> governance' would not be a better choice, Network being a shorthand for >> (global) 'information and communication networks' as it is the new network >> diagram and architecture that has made the whole thing revolutionary, not >> information per se that has been with us forever. Noting that IT >> governance has already been captured by the corporate world (besides, the >> T might sound too exclusive), other options may include: 'IP governance' >> (IP in generic sense) and 'Internet in global governance'. But then again, >> in view of these results, 'global internet governance' was not such a bad >> candidate after all! >> >> Best, >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:35 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Hi, >> >> while I understand the uneasiness of assembling a broadening field of >> policy action under an unchanging term, I don't follow IISD's solution. In >> my view, public policy is just one specific form of governance, not an >> alternative. What might change in the long run is the other component of >> the term. Internet may appear to be too narrow to cover all the aspects >> addressed in this field. Some people now refer to information governance >> as a broader concept. >> >> jeanette >> >> >> On 22.09.2010 20:59, McTim wrote: >> FYI: >> >> http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2010/icts_internet_sd_new_paradigm.pdf >> >> For those getting tired of the term "Internet Governance" (like me) >> please see bottom of page 6: >> >> "The term “Internet governance” has been widely used since the World >> Summit on the Information Society to describe not just the technical >> management and coordination of the Internet itself (which is sometimes >> called “narrow Internet governance”), but also the >> relationship between the Internet and mainstream public policy issues >> that are affected by it (sometimes called “broad Internet >> governance”). Both of these types of issues are discussed, >> for example, in the Internet Governance Forum. >> IISD believes that the use of the term “Internet governance” for this >> wide range of issues is increasingly inappropriate, particularly where >> issues fall primarily in other public policy arenas. IISD therefore >> prefers to use the term “Internet public policy” for this wider range >> of issues" >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > *********************************************************** > > > -- 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 iza at anr.org Fri Sep 24 20:58:59 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 09:58:59 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Prachatai editor arrested In-Reply-To: <4F1F9FFD-CEE8-4622-B9E1-6C3D2469DD62@cs.ait.ac.th> References: <4F1F9FFD-CEE8-4622-B9E1-6C3D2469DD62@cs.ait.ac.th> Message-ID: From my friend in Thailand, a journalist was arrested, now free on bail. Please share as trial may start. Date: 2010/9/25 Subject: Prachatai editor arrested To: Izumi AIZU Home - BREAKING NEWS - NATIONAL - POLITICS - OPINION - BUSINESS - LIFE - TECHNOLOGY BREAKINGNEWS » - Share | Prachatai editor arrested The Prachaitai editor was arrested Friday on charge of disseminating lese majesty statement on the website. Jiranuch Premchaiporn, 43, was arrested at the Suvarnabhumi International Airport upon returning from Finland. Pol Col Phakkhapong Sai-ubol of the Immigration Bureau said Jiranuch had been taken to the Khon Kaen police station for taking further legal action. She denied the charges, Phakkhapong said. The Nation Privacy Policy (c) 2007 www.nationmultimedia.com Thailand 1854 Bangna-Trat Road, Bangna, Bangkok 10260 Thailand. Tel 66-2-338-3000(Call Center), 66-2-338-3333, Fax 66-2-338-3334 ,E-mail: customer at nationgroup.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Sep 24 21:47:29 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 09:47:29 +0800 Subject: [governance] Women IGC members, please consider nominating for coordinator Message-ID: I am hesitant to close the nominations for IGC coordinator while we still do not have a woman candidate. Some excellent potential candidates have been invited to nominate and may be still considering. But please consider nominating yourself if you have been a member of the IGC for some time, even if you don't feel that you are an obvious candidate. You do not need to have been a high-profile member in the past in order to make a good coordinator. I would also invite Izumi and Rafik to post a short biography about themselves so that newer members who might not know them well can be better informed for the voting. Thanks! -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Sep 25 02:13:07 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 11:43:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe In-Reply-To: <9447101F-7ACC-492B-9BAA-0ECA9BFF3EF8@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <9447101F-7ACC-492B-9BAA-0ECA9BFF3EF8@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4C9D92F3.5060706@itforchange.net> Bill Adding to my previous comments on the CoE process, which were about (1) real participative-ness of all global stakeholders in any cross-border Internet treaty discussions, rather then taking the cyber-security treaty and ACTA route towards a new, undemocratic, form of global governance regime, and (2) the related issue of the implications of this CoE process vis a vis the WSIS mandated 'enhanced cooperation' process. I am not sure I get the basis of your critical analysis of how mutual-responsibilities across borders will work. Already governments try to take all measures to make sure that no harm is caused by manipulations etc of, and through, the Internet within their borders, right. That is their mandate to do. Reciprocal mutual responsibilities will call for the same or similar care and vigilance to be kept regarding activities taking place within their boundaries but intending and/or likely to cause harm elsewhere. How would that increase surveillance, control etc? It is more or less obvious that no country is likely to be more proactive and vigilant to protect against damages outside its borders than inside its border. The effort is only to prevent them from being remiss, negligent and/or complacent (or perhaps even co-conspirators) in this regard. The real issue here is how we reach a set of globally acceptable standards of what constitutes harm or damage through and over the Internet. That is the crux of the issue. And I strongly believe that (1) we cannot figure that out unless we all sit down to discuss it, I mean all global stakeholders (2) any such global normative discussions. and their likely outcomes, have a high chance of raising the bar in terms of human rights etc then lead us to the lowest common denominator. Yes, thing may not turn out exactly as per our best hopes, but it will be better than how it is now (remember, almost all countries are already able to control traffic flows inside their borders as much as they want to, or will soon be able to do so). In that sense, things could only become better from here if we can move towards some kind of global norms. Parminder On Friday 24 September 2010 10:59 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > I'm a bit behind on the cross-border mail flow.... > > On Sep 22, 2010, at 5:48 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > > >> I agree with Bill's comments. I was a discussant at that workshop, and I didn't think that the material presented by Rolf was worth significant discussion at the time. >> > Here we disagree George. I think the initiative merits discussion, and I've been doing that with the group since the Spring. But as I said, there are issues that would have to be worked through to make it clearer and potentially supportable, and even if that were to happen the political prognosis would be fuzzy. Can't do much about the latter, but the former could be tackled so we know either way if there's a there there. > > Part of the problem derives from the origins. Following the resolution adopted at Reykjavik in May 2009, the Committee of Ministers called for the elaboration of new legal instruments on cross-border flows of Internet traffic and protection of resources critical to net stability, which then led to formation of the Ad-hoc Advisory Group that generated the paper in question. Normally, when a new set of challenges is identified that may merit international cooperation, it's desirable to follow a logical sequence in which the challenges are well specified, the range of options for addressing them are laid out and subjected to cost/benefit analysis, and then possible ways forward are identified for discussion—all with transparency and public engagement along the way. But the ministers seemed to skip to the end and say, let's go for a new convention and get some experts to figure out what it's really about. This seems a bit cart before the horse, like the Framework Convention; the form chosen should follow from a careful specification of the function to be served. It may well be that one could address whatever the concerns are through other. less heavy mechanisms, but a conversation about that isn't happening. The ministers seem to want to position COE as a body that makes Internet governance treaties, as per the persistent invocations at IGF meetings of the cybercrime convention and other instruments governments outside the region are invited to join. Given its human rights orientation, multistakeholder orientation, nice staff, and the people involved in the drafting group, one may feel inclined to welcome such an effort, but that shouldn't mean just signing on to stuff without thinking it through. > > There are certainly good things in the draft document. Who could argue with these guiding principles: > > 1. Protection of fundamental rights and freedoms > 2. Multistakeholderism > 3. Universality of the Internet > 4. Stability and security > 5. Empowerment of Internet users > 6. Openness and interoperability of the Internet > 7. Network Neutrality (end-to-end principle) > 8. Decentralised management responsibility > 9. Development and overcoming the digital divide > 10. Cultural and linguistic diversity > > But here's where I get stuck: > > 11. Responsibilities of states > > Which gets spelled out in the second section of the paper, and includes, inter alia, that states should: take take all reasonable measures to ascertain whether activities involving risk of causing significant transboundary disruption to the stability, security and resilience of network resources are taking place within their jurisdiction, assess the possible adverse effects or consequences that such activities may have and provide prior and timely notification and relevant information to potentially affected states; take appropriate measures to prevent Internet users’ involvement in cyber attacks and other forms of malicious use; establish monitoring mechanisms to implement these provisions; and be responsible for their international obligations, including with respect to liability. > > In short, states would take on legally codified mutual responsibility to each other—and potentially be subject to liability for damages---to ensure that stuff doesn't happen within their territories that can affect information flow elsewhere. That might sound reasonable in principle, but consider what it could entail in practice. For example, signatories would have strong incentives to significantly expand the scope and depth of their surveillance in order to reduce the risk they'll be held accountable if some miscreant sets loose a bit of malware on the world. There's already rampant state-building securitization going on, do we want to advance it by making states responsible to each other to control every teenage hacker etc? Moreover, given that this "unapproved" behavior is going on all the time everywhere, wouldn't this risk unleashing a torrent of consultations and maybe lawsuits? Earlier papers in the process drew heavily on environmental law and liability for cross-border pollution as a starting point, but one wonders if the parallel isn't a little inexact. And then there's other stuff like how to define what constitutes harm that a state should be obliged to prevent, mitigate, take liability and make redress for; is it reasonable to hold states responsible for any and all private activities within their jurisdiction that could conceivably have negative cross border effects; what mechanisms of monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution and the like would be appropriate; how does one balance the priority of human rights, net neutrality, etc with the implied surveillance; is it reasonable to expect that developing countries could meet the sort of requirements envisaged, and what happens if a state fails to fully discharge it duties; is it likely that other non-continental democracies with different legal arrangements and political configurations would sign up for such an effort; and so on… > > Historically, the mutual responsibility provisions of international telecom law were used to strengthen state power and monopolies at the expense of competition and openness. It's not obvious you'd get a notably better outcome this time. Maybe if it were just a soft law thing, normative… > > Anyway, I'd think these issues merit thinking through rather than dismissing the whole effort ex ante. > > Cheers, > > Bill > > >> In fact, when word of such a treaty was first posted on this list, I did not even associate it with the workshop in which I participated. This event has been blown out of proportion. >> >> George >> >> At 9:11 AM +0200 9/22/10, William Drake wrote: >> >>> Still more confused and clueless reportage on IGŠ. >>> >>> 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, regulationŠit'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 rightŠ" >>> >>> 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 >>> > *********************************************************** > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Sep 25 02:41:25 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 09:41:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe In-Reply-To: <4C9D92F3.5060706@itforchange.net> References: <9447101F-7ACC-492B-9BAA-0ECA9BFF3EF8@graduateinstitute.ch> <4C9D92F3.5060706@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 9:13 AM, parminder wrote: > Bill > > > The real issue here is how we reach a set of globally acceptable standards > of what constitutes harm or damage through and over the Internet. That is > the crux of the issue. And I strongly believe that Some of us believe that the real issue is "should we" reach a set of globally acceptable standards, and not "how do we". > > (1) we cannot figure that out unless we all sit down to discuss it,  I mean > all global stakeholders > > (2) any such global normative discussions. and their likely outcomes, have a > high chance of raising the bar in terms of human rights etc then lead us to > the lowest common denominator. At best, that is over optimistic, at worst, hopelessly naive. Yes, thing may not turn out exactly as per > our best hopes, but it will be better than how it is now conjecture I think. (remember, almost > all countries are already able to control traffic flows inside their borders > as much as they want to, or will soon be able to do so). How is this "control" accomplished (outside of the relatively few nation states that mandate a single gateway)? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Sep 25 06:46:37 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 12:46:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Council of Europe Framework of Commitment References: <946641AC34E0E54FBB7E559B13CF36B702F7FC83@ASTERIX.key.coe.int> <946641AC34E0E54FBB7E559B13CF36B702F7FC84@ASTERIX.key.coe.int> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0714B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <946641AC34E0E54FBB7E559B13CF36B702F7FC89@ASTERIX.key.coe.int> <946641AC34E0E54FBB7E559B13CF36B702F7FC8C@ASTERIX.key.coe.int> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07175@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear all I followed with great interest the recent thread on an international Internet Governance treaty triggered by a misleading public article. Obviously the author of this article misunderstood something and was not fully informed about the purpose and background of the COE initiative and the role of the workshop 60 within the recent IGF. However the started debate is very useful and helps to clarifiy some issue which are under constant and evolving discussion. To stimulare the discussion further I invite you to comment to the "Discussion Paper" which was tabled in Vilnjus as a backgrounder for Workshop 60. We - that is in particular the small CEO Expert Group which I chair (with Michael Yakushew as Co-Chair and Rolf Weber und Christian Singer as members) and some CEO people - would be very thankful for all kind of input. We will have a small group meeting early November 2011 (to evaluate the feedback from the Vilnjus workshop) and have to report back to the CDMC (which is the CEO Ministerial Committee) mid-November. Based on this report we will draft a workplan for 2011. We think that the background paper is just a starter and it needs much more time, analysis and involvment of other groups to move from a set of ideas, principles and proposals to a more serious and comprehensive proposal. Our plan is, inter alia, to prepare a larger expert workshop in connection with the forthcoming 4th EURODIG end of May 2011 in Belgrade and a more global oriented workshop in connection with the 6th IGF in Nairobi end of September 2011. You are cordially invited to join this process. Best wishes wolfgang ________________________________ Von: THACI Elvana [mailto:Elvana.THACI at coe.int] Gesendet: Di 21.09.2010 16:44 An: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Cc: YAKUSHEV Michael; SINGER Christian; rolf.weber at rwi.uzh.ch Betreff: RE: Antwort: CI work on media reports Wolfgang, Please disregard the attachment in my earlier message. I have removed the para.4, Part II, General Principles (issue of liability) as discussed in our informal meeting in the document attached to this one. Please use this version for posting purposes. Apologies for the confusion and hoping for your understanding. Elvana -----Original Message----- From: THACI Elvana Sent: Tuesday 21 September 2010 16:13 To: '"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'; rolf.weber at rwi.uzh.ch Cc: YAKUSHEV Michael; SINGER Christian Subject: RE: Antwort: CI work on media reports Thanks Wolfgang. Yes, I am a subscriber but I think that the posting would carry more weight if it came from the experts of the group. Considering that you are quite active in the list I think that it would make sense if you posted it. Here is a pdf copy of the discussion paper. In order to address Rolf's valid points it would be useful to point out that the work of the CI is at a preparatory stage and that comments and views are welcome. Elvana -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Tuesday 21 September 2010 15:30 To: THACI Elvana; rolf.weber at rwi.uzh.ch Cc: YAKUSHEV Michael; SINGER Christian Subject: AW: Antwort: CI work on media reports Yes we should do this. Shoud I do this? Elvana if you have subscribed to the list you can do this as well. w ________________________________ Von: THACI Elvana [mailto:Elvana.THACI at coe.int] Gesendet: Di 21.09.2010 13:25 An: rolf.weber at rwi.uzh.ch Cc: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; YAKUSHEV Michael; SINGER Christian Betreff: RE: Antwort: CI work on media reports Thanks for your reaction Rolf. I recall that before the IGF Wolfgang was contemplating to post the paper in the governance list and invite comments. For obvious reasons (i.e. intensive IGF preparations) that did not happen. Might we not consider posting the discussion paper now? Elvana ________________________________ From: rolf.weber at rwi.uzh.ch [mailto:rolf.weber at rwi.uzh.ch] Sent: Tuesday 21 September 2010 13:20 To: THACI Elvana Subject: Antwort: CI work on media reports Dear Elvana, dear all First of all, in my opinion it is good to have the discussion spread wider. As you say, for example the emphasis on net neutrality does not correspond to our intentions, but I think that it is not a tragedy. I'm indeed puzzled by the word "Treaty" which I never mentioned, particularly since we propose a looser framework. However, it would probably be difficult to interfere at this stage, except if ComputerWeekly would allow us the write a special article about our project. Best Rolf -----"THACI Elvana" schrieb: ----- An: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang , "Rolf Weber" , "SINGER Christian" , "YAKUSHEV Michael" Von: "THACI Elvana" Datum: 21.09.2010 12:35 Betreff: CI work on media reports Dear CI members, Computerweekly has a report on the CI work and workshop: http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/09/17/242901/Europe-calls-for-global-internet-treaty.htm There are some ideas that one would not normally infer from our discussions and angles but overall I find the report balanced. Please let me know what do you think. I will send you the consolidation of comments received hopefully within the promised deadline. Elvana ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For 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: Discussion Paper WS 60REV.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 69546 bytes Desc: Discussion Paper WS 60REV.pdf URL: From gpaque at gmail.com Sat Sep 25 07:56:32 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 07:26:32 -0430 Subject: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 Message-ID: <4C9DE370.9040108@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 andersj at elon.edu Sat Sep 25 08:07:34 2010 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 08:07:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 In-Reply-To: <4C9DE370.9040108@gmail.com> Message-ID: Great work by Ginger and MANY people who led and assisted in so many ways. It really is beginning to feel to those who must participate remotely as if you are really there, on the scene while still so far away. There¹s more work to be done on this, but thanks to the people who facilitated it in so many ways this year. I was in North Carolina the entire time, but I feel that between conversations on this list and on Twitter, the IGF Secretariat¹s provision of timely information, the contributions of organizations like Cisco, the persistence of many individuals including those who were the catalysts for hubs and remote moderators that it really was a GLOBAL IGF. Congratulations to all! Janna On 9/25/10 7:56 AM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > Remote participation at the IGF Vilnius 2010 raised the bar for remote > participation in international public policy meetings. Not in sheer volume, > although 600+ individuals is a good number, but in actual inclusion and > participation, with 33 registered remote hubs and dozens of remote panelists, > this IGF was indeed a global success. While there was successful remote > observation with excellent webcast, audiocast and captioning, there was also > the possibility of real remote participation for those who wanted to comment, > ask questions and respond, with the same privileges and priorities as those > who attended in person. > > The next step will be to ensure that remote participants take advantage of > this possibility, and that remote moderators learn to transmit the interest > and personal power of the comments so that their impact is tangibly felt in > the meeting room. > > An interesting (unforeseen) development was chat exchanges between remote > hubs on the WebEx platform, as remote hubs gave feedback to presentations or > comments by other remote hubs. > > Pre-IGF preparations were better than ever, with strategy, planning, training > and information from the first 2010 OC in Geneva. > > I would like to thank the volunteer remote moderators from the panels, > DiploFoundation fellows and the ISOC ambassadors program for their engagement > and precious time and energy; the Lithuania host for their support and their > tech teams; the IGF Secretariat for their support and follow-up, > DiploFoundation for constant backup, and my fellow RPWG members for their > year-round worry, work and dynamic involvement. > > Thanks to all of the hub organizers for their work to include people from all > over the world in this meeting too. > > The RPWG will publish a report later this year. We look forward to your > comments and suggestions. > > Warm regards, > Ginger -- 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) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 25 09:55:36 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 15:55:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] EU FP 7 Internet Governance Workshop References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D344DF434D@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07064@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0706E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0716F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07171@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07178@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0717E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear list there is a EU Cluster Meeting FP 7 about "Network on the Future" in Brussels,October 18 - 20. , http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/future-networks/concertation-clusters_en.html On Monday afternoon there is a three hour workshop on Internet Governance and the Network of the Future, which includes also Governance aspects of the Internet of Things. We are still looking for two or three panelists who could speak on more basic Internet Governance issues in the panel on Monday, October 18, 2010, afternoon. The FP 7 environment is mainly technical and participants are coming more from the enginering groups and not from policy. Unfortunately we can not provide travel or accomodation support. If you are interested please let me know as quick as possible. Thanks wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Erika Mann [mailto:erika at erikamann.com] Gesendet: Sa 25.09.2010 10:51 An: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Betreff: Re: ICANN Der Nachmittag sollte klappen, ich werde das noch mit den Veranstaltern in Paris klären müssen. Es kann sein, dass wir am Vormittag noch Gespräche haben und ich dann erst am späteren Nachmittag zurück komme. Ich melde mich bei Dir. Wirst Du auch noch am 21.Oktober am Vormittag in Brüssel sein? 2010/9/24 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" 20. oder 21. könnte klappen. Ich habe am 20. vormittag ein Gespräch mit Santucci. Irgendwo am Nachmittag? w ________________________________ Von: Erika Mann [mailto:erika at erikamann.com] Gesendet: Fr 24.09.2010 20:51 An: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Betreff: Re: ICANN Lieber Wolfgang, das hätte ich wirklich gerne gemacht, allerdings leite ich am 19. Oktober eine Veranstaltung in Paris. Deshalb ist dies leider nicht möglich. Wie lange wirst Du denn in Brüssel sein, vielleicht können wir uns am 20. oder am 21. Oktober treffen? Rod Beckstrom war in dieser Woche in Brüssel und ich habe ihn mitgenommen zu einer Veranstaltung von TPN (Transatlantic Policy Network). Danach haben wir dann noch lange zusammen gesessen und uns unterhalten. Es wäre wirklich sehr schön Dich bald zu sehen. Alles Liebe, Erika +32 2 538 44 40 +49 170 31 78 230 (cell) +1 202 664 3872 (cell) erika at erikamann.com 2010/9/24 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Liebe Erika am 19. Oktober findet in Brüssel (Beaulieu) bei der Kommission ein Cluster-Meeting statt wo am Nachmittag das Thema "Internet Governance" diskutiert wird (in einem ziemlich "kleinen" Kreis). Siehst Du eine Möglichkeit, daß Du da kommst und ein Statement zu einigen Grundfragen von IG - von ICANN bis zum Internet der Dinge - darlegst (maximum 15 Minuten)? . Es wäre auch gut diese Gelegenheit zu nutzen um über ICANN zu sprechen. Die Nominierung unseres NomCom (und vor allem die Nicht-Nominierungen der drei sitting directors) haben ja große Wellen, vor allem im Board selbst, gesorgt. Wir sollten daher unbedingt darüber sprechen. LG 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Sep 25 21:01:41 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 09:01:41 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Women IGC members, please consider nominating for coordinator In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1D4421D9-2F70-4B06-84A4-F1FC28FFFB52@ciroap.org> On 25/09/2010, at 9:47 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I am hesitant to close the nominations for IGC coordinator while we still do not have a woman candidate. Some excellent potential candidates have been invited to nominate and may be still considering. But please consider nominating yourself if you have been a member of the IGC for some time, even if you don't feel that you are an obvious candidate. You do not need to have been a high-profile member in the past in order to make a good coordinator. Marilia Maciel has agreed to be nominated. We now have three strong candidates, so I'm going to start preparing for the poll. In the meantime, anyone else can still nominate until the poll opens. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Sep 25 22:55:03 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 10:55:03 +0800 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a streamlined IGC nominating committee process for this year Message-ID: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> I intend to propose an important amendment to our charter, which will have effect for this year only. The charter requires that an IGC nominating committee select only one slate of candidates at a time, and that it take two months before making its selections (one month to determine the criteria for selections, and another month to decide on the candidates). This would not leave us enough time to nominate members for the CSTD's IGF working group. Moreover, since a nominating committee will also be required to appoint a new appeals team and new representatives for the MAG, I am proposing a streamlined procedure for this year only. The charter amendment that I propose is as follows: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this charter, the nominating committee that serves to select representatives to the IGF working group of the CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for Development) in 2010: (a) may abbreviate its procedures for determining the selection criteria for candidates to that working group and selecting those candidates, as necessary to meet the CSTD's schedule for convening that group; (b) may also select candidates to be put forward by the IGC for the MAG (Multistakeholder Advisory Group) that is next convened following the Vilnius meeting of the IGF; and (c) may also select candidates for the next appeals team of the IGC." In order to put this charter amendment to a vote, I require nine other members of the IGC to propose the amendment. I am therefore requesting nine others to speak up in support of the proposal above. NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT. It is only a call for support to put the amendment to a vote. The vote itself will be conducted in conjunction with the upcoming coordinator election. Once nine other members have spoken in favour, there will be no need for others to respond. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 Sat Sep 25 23:11:25 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 23:11:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I second the proposed amendment. Mawaki On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I intend to propose an important amendment to our charter, which will have > effect for this year only. > > The charter requires that an IGC nominating committee select only one slate > of candidates at a time, and that it take two months before making its > selections (one month to determine the criteria for selections, and another > month to decide on the candidates). > > *This would not leave us enough time to nominate members for the CSTD's > IGF working group. * Moreover, since a nominating committee will also be > required to appoint a new appeals team and new representatives for the MAG, > I am proposing a streamlined procedure for this year only. > > The charter amendment that I propose is as follows: > > "Notwithstanding any other provision of this charter, the nominating > committee that serves to select representatives to the IGF working group of > the CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for Development) in 2010: > > (a) may abbreviate its procedures for determining the selection criteria > for candidates to that working group and selecting those candidates, as > necessary to meet the CSTD's schedule for convening that group; > > (b) may also select candidates to be put forward by the IGC for the MAG > (Multistakeholder Advisory Group) that is next convened following the > Vilnius meeting of the IGF; and > > (c) may also select candidates for the next appeals team of the IGC." > > In order to put this charter amendment to a vote, I require nine other > members of the IGC to propose the amendment. I am therefore requesting nine > others to speak up in support of the proposal above. > > NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT. It is only a call for > support to put the amendment to a vote. The vote itself will be conducted > in conjunction with the upcoming coordinator election. Once nine other > members have spoken in favour, there will be no need for others to respond. > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer > rights around the world. > *http://www.consumersinternational.org/50* > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Sat Sep 25 23:24:27 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 23:24:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a streamlined IGC nominating committee process for this year In-Reply-To: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> Hi, I am fine with seconding. One question. Why did you not make it a more amendment, something: ammend ˇ8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be disbanded after the decision is made. To read 8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be disbanded after the decision is made. However, in special cases where several different nominating committees would need to be completed in a shortened time frame that did not allow for multiple nominating committees, the co-coordinators may jointly request one nominating committee to fill several functions. This way, it is covered if it happens again. a. On 25 Sep 2010, at 22:55, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I intend to propose an important amendment to our charter, which will have effect for this year only. > > The charter requires that an IGC nominating committee select only one slate of candidates at a time, and that it take two months before making its selections (one month to determine the criteria for selections, and another month to decide on the candidates). > > This would not leave us enough time to nominate members for the CSTD's IGF working group. Moreover, since a nominating committee will also be required to appoint a new appeals team and new representatives for the MAG, I am proposing a streamlined procedure for this year only. > > The charter amendment that I propose is as follows: > > "Notwithstanding any other provision of this charter, the nominating committee that serves to select representatives to the IGF working group of the CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for Development) in 2010: > > (a) may abbreviate its procedures for determining the selection criteria for candidates to that working group and selecting those candidates, as necessary to meet the CSTD's schedule for convening that group; > > (b) may also select candidates to be put forward by the IGC for the MAG (Multistakeholder Advisory Group) that is next convened following the Vilnius meeting of the IGF; and > > (c) may also select candidates for the next appeals team of the IGC." > > In order to put this charter amendment to a vote, I require nine other members of the IGC to propose the amendment. I am therefore requesting nine others to speak up in support of the proposal above. > > NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT. It is only a call for support to put the amendment to a vote. The vote itself will be conducted in conjunction with the upcoming coordinator election. Once nine other members have spoken in favour, there will be no need for others to respond. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > CI is 50 > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 Sat Sep 25 23:51:43 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:51:43 +0800 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a streamlined IGC nominating committee process for this year In-Reply-To: <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> Message-ID: <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> On 26/09/2010, at 11:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > One question. Why did you not make it a more amendment, something: > > ammend > > ˇ8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be disbanded after the decision is made. > > To read > > 8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be disbanded after the decision is made. However, in special cases where several different nominating committees would need to be completed in a shortened time frame that did not allow for multiple nominating committees, the co-coordinators may jointly request one nominating committee to fill several functions. Good idea. But we would also still need to add the bracketted text: "1. Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating committee (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection of appeals team or selection of any other list of nominees needs to be decided. [Whenever possible,] one month will be used to constitute the nomcom and determine the criteria for the selections they are to make, and one month will be used to discuss and decide on candidates." Mawaki and others, can you specify whether you want to put forward *these* amendments - Avri's and the bracketted text above - rather than the one I originally proposed? -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 Sun Sep 26 00:48:02 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 00:48:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I'm not sure what you mean by "add" and by "bracketted text," Jeremy. Are you adding your two "Whenever possible" paragraphs to the language proposed by Avri, or are proposing them as the totality of the new language, or what? I'd appreciate if you could submit the entirety of the new language you're suggesting in one block of text, thanks. Mawaki On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 26/09/2010, at 11:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > One question. Why did you not make it a more amendment, something: > > > > ammend > > > > ˇ8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be > disbanded after the decision is made. > > > > To read > > > > 8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be > disbanded after the decision is made. However, in special cases where > several different nominating committees would need to be completed in a > shortened time frame that did not allow for multiple nominating committees, > the co-coordinators may jointly request one nominating committee to fill > several functions. > > Good idea. But we would also still need to add the bracketted text: > > "1. Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating committee > (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection of appeals > team or selection of any other list of nominees needs to be decided. > > [Whenever possible,] one month will be used to constitute the nomcom and > determine the criteria for the selections they are to make, and one month > will be used to discuss and decide on candidates." > > Mawaki and others, can you specify whether you want to put forward *these* > amendments - Avri's and the bracketted text above - rather than the one I > originally proposed? > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > CI is 50 > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer > rights around the world. > http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Sep 26 01:39:34 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 13:39:34 +0800 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <51318F66-3D2E-4727-A70B-E2E558F699D2@ciroap.org> On 26/09/2010, at 12:48 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > I'm not sure what you mean by "add" and by "bracketted text," Jeremy. Are you adding your two "Whenever possible" paragraphs to the language proposed by Avri, or are proposing them as the totality of the new language, or what? I'd appreciate if you could submit the entirety of the new language you're suggesting in one block of text, thanks. Here is the entirity of the new language, with the new parts in brackets, and clauses not amended omitted. 1. Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating committee (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection of appeals team or selection of any other list of nominees needs to be decided. [Whenever possible,] one month will be used to constitute the nomcom and determine the criteria for the selections they are to make, and one month will be used to discuss and decide on candidates 8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be disbanded after the decision is made. [However, in special cases where several different nominating committees would need to be completed in a shortened time frame that did not allow for multiple nominating committees, the co-coordinators may jointly request one nominating committee to fill several functions.] -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Sep 26 03:36:45 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 10:36:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Im not sure this rises to the level of a charter amendment. Its a one time process. I think we need to know more about the wg (will there be travel support for example) in order for folk to know what time commitment, etc that will be required. Rgds, mctim On 9/26/10, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 26/09/2010, at 11:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> One question. Why did you not make it a more amendment, something: >> >> ammend >> >> ˇ8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be >> disbanded after the decision is made. >> >> To read >> >> 8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be >> disbanded after the decision is made. However, in special cases where >> several different nominating committees would need to be completed in a >> shortened time frame that did not allow for multiple nominating >> committees, the co-coordinators may jointly request one nominating >> committee to fill several functions. > > Good idea. But we would also still need to add the bracketted text: > > "1. Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating committee > (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection of appeals > team or selection of any other list of nominees needs to be decided. > > [Whenever possible,] one month will be used to constitute the nomcom and > determine the criteria for the selections they are to make, and one month > will be used to discuss and decide on candidates." > > Mawaki and others, can you specify whether you want to put forward *these* > amendments - Avri's and the bracketted text above - rather than the one I > originally proposed? > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > CI is 50 > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Sun Sep 26 04:31:01 2010 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 09:31:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: <51318F66-3D2E-4727-A70B-E2E558F699D2@ciroap.org> References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> <51318F66-3D2E-4727-A70B-E2E558F699D2@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Jeremy and all, I second the Avri’s amendment proposal with the bracketed text as it is outlined below. ------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Président de la CIC Fédération Mondiale des Organisations d'Ingénieurs Tél : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------ _____ De : Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Envoyé : dimanche 26 septembre 2010 06:40 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; Mawaki Chango Objet : Re: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a On 26/09/2010, at 12:48 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by "add" and by "bracketted text," Jeremy. Are you adding your two "Whenever possible" paragraphs to the language proposed by Avri, or are proposing them as the totality of the new language, or what? I'd appreciate if you could submit the entirety of the new language you're suggesting in one block of text, thanks. Here is the entirity of the new language, with the new parts in brackets, and clauses not amended omitted. 1. Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating committee (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection of appeals team or selection of any other list of nominees needs to be decided. [Whenever possible,] one month will be used to constitute the nomcom and determine the criteria for the selections they are to make, and one month will be used to discuss and decide on candidates 8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be disbanded after the decision is made. [However, in special cases where several different nominating committees would need to be completed in a shortened time frame that did not allow for multiple nominating committees, the co-coordinators may jointly request one nominating committee to fill several functions.] -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sun Sep 26 04:55:09 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 10:55:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe In-Reply-To: <4C9D92F3.5060706@itforchange.net> References: <9447101F-7ACC-492B-9BAA-0ECA9BFF3EF8@graduateinstitute.ch> <4C9D92F3.5060706@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <9194AB1A-C047-488F-8AAB-701CC3400E96@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Parminder, Traveling & can follow up more when in front of a computer, but for now would say --It's not obvious to me states are all doing as much as you suggest, and in any event much of whatever they may be doing isn't working --a great deal of the real work is being done by non-state actors, particularly the private sector --A treaty commitment to other states could create strong incentives to take intrusive steps to avoid being held responsible politically. If you add to that the possibility of actual legal liability for damage$$ the incentive is greatly reinforced. --A treaty commitment would also provide much political cover/rationalization for any and all securitization steps they might like to take, in the same way post-9/11 fear gets used all over. Just say something is necessary because of security and you can get away with anything. Add to that "we have a treaty obligation" and I suspect it gets worse. Best Bill Sent from my iPhone On Sep 25, 2010, at 8:13, parminder wrote: > Bill > > Adding to my previous comments on the CoE process, which were about > > (1) real participative-ness of all global stakeholders in any cross-border Internet treaty discussions, rather then taking the cyber-security treaty and ACTA route towards a new, undemocratic, form of global governance regime, and > > (2) the related issue of the implications of this CoE process vis a vis the WSIS mandated 'enhanced cooperation' process. > > I am not sure I get the basis of your critical analysis of how mutual-responsibilities across borders will work. Already governments try to take all measures to make sure that no harm is caused by manipulations etc of, and through, the Internet within their borders, right. That is their mandate to do. Reciprocal mutual responsibilities will call for the same or similar care and vigilance to be kept regarding activities taking place within their boundaries but intending and/or likely to cause harm elsewhere. How would that increase surveillance, control etc? It is more or less obvious that no country is likely to be more proactive and vigilant to protect against damages outside its borders than inside its border. The effort is only to prevent them from being remiss, negligent and/or complacent (or perhaps even co-conspirators) in this regard. > > The real issue here is how we reach a set of globally acceptable standards of what constitutes harm or damage through and over the Internet. That is the crux of the issue. And I strongly believe that > > (1) we cannot figure that out unless we all sit down to discuss it, I mean all global stakeholders > > (2) any such global normative discussions. and their likely outcomes, have a high chance of raising the bar in terms of human rights etc then lead us to the lowest common denominator. Yes, thing may not turn out exactly as per our best hopes, but it will be better than how it is now (remember, almost all countries are already able to control traffic flows inside their borders as much as they want to, or will soon be able to do so). In that sense, things could only become better from here if we can move towards some kind of global norms. > > Parminder > > On Friday 24 September 2010 10:59 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> I'm a bit behind on the cross-border mail flow.... >> >> On Sep 22, 2010, at 5:48 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: >> >> >>> I agree with Bill's comments. I was a discussant at that workshop, and I didn't think that the material presented by Rolf was worth significant discussion at the time. >>> >> Here we disagree George. I think the initiative merits discussion, and I've been doing that with the group since the Spring. But as I said, there are issues that would have to be worked through to make it clearer and potentially supportable, and even if that were to happen the political prognosis would be fuzzy. Can't do much about the latter, but the former could be tackled so we know either way if there's a there there. >> >> Part of the problem derives from the origins. Following the resolution adopted at Reykjavik in May 2009, the Committee of Ministers called for the elaboration of new legal instruments on cross-border flows of Internet traffic and protection of resources critical to net stability, which then led to formation of the Ad-hoc Advisory Group that generated the paper in question. Normally, when a new set of challenges is identified that may merit international cooperation, it's desirable to follow a logical sequence in which the challenges are well specified, the range of options for addressing them are laid out and subjected to cost/benefit analysis, and then possible ways forward are identified for discussion—all with transparency and public engagement along the way. But the ministers seemed to skip to the end and say, let's go for a new convention and get some experts to figure out what it's really about. This seems a bit cart before the horse, like the Framework Convention; >> the form chosen should follow from a careful specification of the function to be served. It may well be that one could address whatever the concerns are through other. less heavy mechanisms, but a conversation about that isn't happening. The ministers seem to want to position COE as a body that makes Internet governance treaties, as per the persistent invocations at IGF meetings of the cybercrime convention and other instruments governments outside the region are invited to join. Given its human rights orientation, multistakeholder orientation, nice staff, and the people involved in the drafting group, one may feel inclined to welcome such an effort, but that shouldn't mean just signing on to stuff without thinking it through. >> >> There are certainly good things in the draft document. Who could argue with these guiding principles: >> >> 1. Protection of fundamental rights and freedoms >> 2. Multistakeholderism >> 3. Universality of the Internet >> 4. Stability and security >> 5. Empowerment of Internet users >> 6. Openness and interoperability of the Internet >> 7. Network Neutrality (end-to-end principle) >> 8. Decentralised management responsibility >> 9. Development and overcoming the digital divide >> 10. Cultural and linguistic diversity >> >> But here's where I get stuck: >> >> 11. Responsibilities of states >> >> Which gets spelled out in the second section of the paper, and includes, inter alia, that states should: take take all reasonable measures to ascertain whether activities involving risk of causing significant transboundary disruption to the stability, security and resilience of network resources are taking place within their jurisdiction, assess the possible adverse effects or consequences that such activities may have and provide prior and timely notification and relevant information to potentially affected states; take appropriate measures to prevent Internet users’ involvement in cyber attacks and other forms of malicious use; establish monitoring mechanisms to implement these provisions; and be responsible for their international obligations, including with respect to liability. >> >> In short, states would take on legally codified mutual responsibility to each other—and potentially be subject to liability for damages---to ensure that stuff doesn't happen within their territories that can affect information flow elsewhere. That might sound reasonable in principle, but consider what it could entail in practice. For example, signatories would have strong incentives to significantly expand the scope and depth of their surveillance in order to reduce the risk they'll be held accountable if some miscreant sets loose a bit of malware on the world. There's already rampant state-building securitization going on, do we want to advance it by making states responsible to each other to control every teenage hacker etc? Moreover, given that this "unapproved" behavior is going on all the time everywhere, wouldn't this risk unleashing a torrent of consultations and maybe lawsuits? Earlier papers in the process drew heavily on environmental law and liability for cross >> -border pollution as a starting point, but one wonders if the parallel isn't a little inexact. And then there's other stuff like how to define what constitutes harm that a state should be obliged to prevent, mitigate, take liability and make redress for; is it reasonable to hold states responsible for any and all private activities within their jurisdiction that could conceivably have negative cross border effects; what mechanisms of monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution and the like would be appropriate; how does one balance the priority of human rights, net neutrality, etc with the implied surveillance; is it reasonable to expect that developing countries could meet the sort of requirements envisaged, and what happens if a state fails to fully discharge it duties; is it likely that other non-continental democracies with different legal arrangements and political configurations would sign up for such an effort; and so on… >> >> Historically, the mutual responsibility provisions of international telecom law were used to strengthen state power and monopolies at the expense of competition and openness. It's not obvious you'd get a notably better outcome this time. Maybe if it were just a soft law thing, normative… >> >> Anyway, I'd think these issues merit thinking through rather than dismissing the whole effort ex ante. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bill >> >> >>> In fact, when word of such a treaty was first posted on this list, I did not even associate it with the workshop in which I participated. This event has been blown out of proportion. >>> >>> George >>> >>> At 9:11 AM +0200 9/22/10, William Drake wrote: >>> >>>> Still more confused and clueless reportage on IGŠ. >>>> >>>> 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, regulationŠit'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 rightŠ" >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >> *********************************************************** >> 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 >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > 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 Sun Sep 26 08:57:18 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 21:57:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> <51318F66-3D2E-4727-A70B-E2E558F699D2@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I also second Avri's amendment proposal with Jeremy's further change. izumi 2010/9/26 Tijani BEN JEMAA : > Jeremy and all, > > > > I second the Avri’s amendment proposal with the bracketed text as it is > outlined below. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Tijani BEN JEMAA > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 26 09:01:28 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 09:01:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> <51318F66-3D2E-4727-A70B-E2E558F699D2@ciroap.org> , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956AD0BA@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I - third? - the Jeremy text with Avri's bracketed language. ________________________________________ From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [iza at anr.org] Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 8:57 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a I also second Avri's amendment proposal with Jeremy's further change. izumi 2010/9/26 Tijani BEN JEMAA : > Jeremy and all, > > > > I second the Avri’s amendment proposal with the bracketed text as it is > outlined below. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Tijani BEN JEMAA > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 26 09:19:44 2010 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 09:19:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956AD0BA@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I support the text from Jeremy with Avri's modification. Janna On 9/26/10 9:01 AM, "Lee W McKnight" wrote: > I - third? - the Jeremy text with Avri's bracketed language. > ________________________________________ > From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU > [iza at anr.org] > Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 8:57 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a > > I also second Avri's amendment proposal with Jeremy's further change. > > izumi > > 2010/9/26 Tijani BEN JEMAA : >> Jeremy and all, >> >> >> >> I second the Avri¹s amendment proposal with the bracketed text as it is >> outlined below. >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Tijani BEN JEMAA >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 iza at anr.org Sun Sep 26 09:50:12 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 22:50:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] my short statement Message-ID: Short statement I would like to be selected for the co-coordinator’s position of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. I see that next 6 to 12 months will be very crucial for the Civil Society movement around the continuation of IGF, and also for the WSIS 2015. There is a clear danger to the multi-stakeholder principle and framework for the IGF. Unless we raise the voices strongly and act together, we may lose the ground we have gained so far, I am afraid. Having participated in most of ICANN meetings and all WSIS and IGF meetings, I would like to bring my experience to the crucial process ahead, to lobby governments and private sector why they should work together with us on equal footing. I like to further promote the interests of the developing parts of the world, gender-equal perspectives and the voices of the ignored, unfairly treated. My skill is “bridging” – connecting different values, sides, cultures, or interests. I still feel not so confident in using English, as that is not my mother tongue, therefore I believe I can represent non-English speaking majority of the civil society people fairly well. For the next IGF (and WSIS), I propose to make the working language not only English, but also other major languages (at least). I also propose to have much more “open space” at the next round of IGF, to allow free exchange of ideas, between old-timer and new-bees, cross-cultural and cross-sectoral, to advance “multi-stakeholderism” one step ahead and one more step practical. Of course, as a coordinator, I will serve for the entire caucus and willing to listen, facilitate and coordinate as the members dictate. To do so effectively, however, I also like to propose that at least one of the co-coordinators should be selected at the coming CSTD advisory member and also the MAG for IGF. This way, the linkage between these advisory groups, sometimes showing closed nature, and our caucus will be strengthened. This is not to say that I personally want to be there, but whoever selected as the coordinator should be there. I welcome more suggestions, opinions and proposals. I appreciate your help and support very much. Izumi Aizu ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Sun Sep 26 09:50:55 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 22:50:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] Izumi Aizu Bio - for CS-IGC Message-ID: Here follows my Bio for your consideratoin. Many thanks! izumi ----------------- Izumi Aizu is Professor and Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for InfoSocinomics, Kumon Center, Tama University in Tokyo and Deputy Director at the Institute for HyperNetwork Society in Oita, Japan. Izumi promoted the use of PC based network in the 1980s and the Internet in the ’90s. In 1997, he founded Asia Network Research in Malaysia, focusing on societal aspects of the Internet, global governance and digital divide. In April 2000, he moved back to Tokyo. He represented Japanese NPO under the government’s requests at the Digital Opportunity Task Force (DOT Force, 2000-2002). He has been participating in the ICANN, WSIS, WGIG and IGF activities as a member of civil society. Until today, he has been trying to bring the voices of users and citizens at ICANN process: at the Membership Advisory Committee (MAC, 1999-2000); AtLarge Advisory Committee (ALAC, 2003-2008). In 2001, he organized to support Asian civil society members to participate in the preparatory process of World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) at Tokyo Regional preparatory meeting in 2003 and other occasions. In 2004 he co-found Internet Governance Task Force (IGTF) of Japan to engage in the debate on Internet Governance at the WSIS Working Group on Internet Governance. In 2009, he co-founded Japan Internet Domain Name Council to promote Internationalized Country Code Top Level Domain, dot Nippon, to bring fair and open selection and governance process for ccTLD management in multi-stakeholder manner in Japan. His recent papers include “Beyond Network Neutrality” (Telecommunication Journal of Australia, 2009) and Japan Chapter at Global Information Society Watch (APC, 2009, 2010). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Sun Sep 26 10:21:21 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 15:21:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4C9F56E1.2040301@wzb.eu> On 26.09.2010 08:36, McTim wrote: > Im not sure this rises to the level of a charter amendment. Hi, should we perhaps clarify first whether Jeremy's suggestions require an amendment of the charter? jeanette Its a one > time process. I think we need to know more about the wg (will there be > travel support for example) in order for folk to know what time > commitment, etc that will be required. Rgds, mctim > > On 9/26/10, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 26/09/2010, at 11:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> One question. Why did you not make it a more amendment, something: >>> >>> ammend >>> >>> ˇ8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be >>> disbanded after the decision is made. >>> >>> To read >>> >>> 8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be >>> disbanded after the decision is made. However, in special cases where >>> several different nominating committees would need to be completed in a >>> shortened time frame that did not allow for multiple nominating >>> committees, the co-coordinators may jointly request one nominating >>> committee to fill several functions. >> >> Good idea. But we would also still need to add the bracketted text: >> >> "1. Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating committee >> (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection of appeals >> team or selection of any other list of nominees needs to be decided. >> >> [Whenever possible,] one month will be used to constitute the nomcom and >> determine the criteria for the selections they are to make, and one month >> will be used to discuss and decide on candidates." >> >> Mawaki and others, can you specify whether you want to put forward *these* >> amendments - Avri's and the bracketted text above - rather than the one I >> originally proposed? >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> CI is 50 >> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in >> 2010. >> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 avri at acm.org Sun Sep 26 11:06:52 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:06:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: <4C9F56E1.2040301@wzb.eu> References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> <4C9F56E1.2040301@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <458C44A4-8F62-436A-B183-BAFF28E088C6@acm.org> On 26 Sep 2010, at 10:21, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > n 26.09.2010 08:36, McTim wrote: >> Im not sure this rises to the level of a charter amendment. > > > Hi, should we perhaps clarify first whether Jeremy's suggestions require an amendment of the charter? > > jeanette Hi, I thought about that myself. While the nomcom rules are called out in the charter > All nominations to external bodies, e.g., the IGF multistakholder advisory group, will be made using a randomly selected nomcom process as defined here. with here == http://www.igcaucus.org/node/2 One could argue that they are not properly part of the charter. I would tend to argue that they are include by reference and hence are part of the charter and that while it is possible that one could try to work around them without going through a charter amendment process, I believe it is best to be maximalist about these things and use the amendment process. This is especially because sometime the recommendation of nomcom can be controversial* and it is best to be careful about changing the rules for such things. So I supported the process choice of the co-coordinators. However it also occurred to me that at the time of writing the nomcom process, the idea that we would need 3 ongoing selections processes at the same time did not occur to people. Certainly did not occur to me and I was holding the 'pen' on our process documents at the time. So instead of amending something with a one time fix, it occurred to me that we had a shortcoming in the process that was easy to fix in the long term and was one that did not require reorienting the IGC's way of working in any essential way. Hence I offered an amendment to the proposal but supported the idea of changing the process through the amendment process. a. * note i fully acknowledge that there are some, a minority at the time we voted on the original charter, that consider the use of a nomcom to select people inherently undemocratic and this controversial no matter what the decision. I obviously disagree but do not want to make the nomcom process even more of a target by changing the rules on the fly - i.e. without the IGC's amendment process.____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Sun Sep 26 11:19:39 2010 From: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com (Rebecca MacKinnon) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:19:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <642D367C-C7D6-4B5C-AE74-157498AFCA32@gmail.com> As a happy remote participant, I too would like to add my congratulations to all who made remote participation work so well this year. Best, Rebecca Rebecca MacKinnon Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org Cell: +1-617-939-3493 E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack On Sep 25, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Janna Anderson wrote: > Great work by Ginger and MANY people who led and assisted in so many ways. It really is beginning to feel to those who must participate remotely as if you are really there, on the scene while still so far away. There’s more work to be done on this, but thanks to the people who facilitated it in so many ways this year. I was in North Carolina the entire time, but I feel that between conversations on this list and on Twitter, the IGF Secretariat’s provision of timely information, the contributions of organizations like Cisco, the persistence of many individuals including those who were the catalysts for hubs and remote moderators that it really was a GLOBAL IGF. > > Congratulations to all! > > Janna > > On 9/25/10 7:56 AM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > >> Remote participation at the IGF Vilnius 2010 raised the bar for remote participation in international public policy meetings. Not in sheer volume, although 600+ individuals is a good number, but in actual inclusion and participation, with 33 registered remote hubs and dozens of remote panelists, this IGF was indeed a global success. While there was successful remote observation with excellent webcast, audiocast and captioning, there was also the possibility of real remote participation for those who wanted to comment, ask questions and respond, with the same privileges and priorities as those who attended in person. >> >> The next step will be to ensure that remote participants take advantage of this possibility, and that remote moderators learn to transmit the interest and personal power of the comments so that their impact is tangibly felt in the meeting room. >> >> An interesting (unforeseen) development was chat exchanges between remote hubs on the WebEx platform, as remote hubs gave feedback to presentations or comments by other remote hubs. >> >> Pre-IGF preparations were better than ever, with strategy, planning, training and information from the first 2010 OC in Geneva. >> >> I would like to thank the volunteer remote moderators from the panels, DiploFoundation fellows and the ISOC ambassadors program for their engagement and precious time and energy; the Lithuania host for their support and their tech teams; the IGF Secretariat for their support and follow-up, DiploFoundation for constant backup, and my fellow RPWG members for their year-round worry, work and dynamic involvement. >> >> Thanks to all of the hub organizers for their work to include people from all over the world in this meeting too. >> >> The RPWG will publish a report later this year. We look forward to your comments and suggestions. >> >> Warm regards, >> Ginger > > -- > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 26 11:35:00 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 00:35:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 In-Reply-To: <642D367C-C7D6-4B5C-AE74-157498AFCA32@gmail.com> References: <642D367C-C7D6-4B5C-AE74-157498AFCA32@gmail.com> Message-ID: I also like to echo the congratulations and thanks, and also one (strange) proposal for the next round. How about, making things "upside-down"? I mean at physical meeting of the IGF, how about making the main speakers and participants all remote? So far, the remote participation and participants are regarded as supplementary, but not given a front-seat status. But think of online chat or conference call where no one is physically present and taking floors as main participants. Everyone is remote. At IGF, we can have the physical participants there, but making most speakers and interactions online, webcast, chat etc. I think it's worth a try so that those who cannot come to the venue still feel they have the main player, with deeper sense of participation and ownership. izumi 2010/9/27 Rebecca MacKinnon : > As a happy remote participant, I too would like to add my congratulations to > all who made remote participation work so well this year. > Best, > Rebecca > > Rebecca MacKinnon > Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation > Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org > Cell: +1-617-939-3493 > E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com > Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com > Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack > On Sep 25, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Janna Anderson wrote: > > Great work by Ginger and MANY people who led and assisted in so many ways. > It really is beginning to feel to those who must participate remotely as if > you are really there, on the scene while still so far away. There’s more > work to be done on this, but thanks to the people who facilitated it in so > many ways this year. I was in North Carolina the entire time, but I feel > that between conversations on this list and on Twitter, the IGF > Secretariat’s provision of timely information, the contributions of > organizations like Cisco, the persistence of many individuals including > those who were the catalysts for hubs and remote moderators that it really > was a GLOBAL IGF. > > Congratulations to all! > > Janna > > On 9/25/10 7:56 AM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > >   Remote participation at the IGF Vilnius 2010 raised the bar for remote > participation in international public policy meetings. Not in sheer volume, > although 600+ individuals is a good number, but in actual inclusion and > participation, with 33 registered remote hubs and dozens of remote > panelists, this IGF was indeed a global success. While there was successful > remote observation with excellent webcast, audiocast and captioning, there > was also the possibility of real remote participation for those who wanted > to comment, ask questions and respond, with the same privileges and > priorities as those who attended in person. > >  The next step will be to ensure that remote participants take advantage of > this possibility, and that remote moderators learn to transmit the interest > and personal power of the comments so that their impact is tangibly felt in > the meeting room. > >  An interesting (unforeseen) development was chat exchanges between remote > hubs on the WebEx platform, as remote hubs gave feedback to presentations or > comments by other remote hubs. > >  Pre-IGF preparations were better than ever, with strategy, planning, > training and information from the first 2010 OC in Geneva. > >  I would like to thank the volunteer remote moderators from the panels, >  DiploFoundation fellows and the ISOC ambassadors program for their > engagement and precious time and energy; the Lithuania host for their > support and their tech teams; the IGF Secretariat for their support and > follow-up, DiploFoundation for constant backup, and my fellow RPWG members > for their year-round worry, work and dynamic involvement. > >  Thanks to all of the hub organizers for their work to include people from > all over the world in this meeting too. > >  The RPWG will publish a report later this year. We look forward to your > comments and suggestions. > >  Warm regards, >  Ginger > > -- > 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 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Sun Sep 26 11:39:47 2010 From: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com (Rebecca MacKinnon) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:39:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Report: cyber-espionage against NGOs, activists and journalists Message-ID: <169DB96A-322B-4DBA-A865-5DCA59A83734@gmail.com> From the South China Morning Post Sunday Magazine. http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.1d923702d0f3d4b2b5326b10cba0a0a0/?vgnextoid=8b50812fd593b210VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=mag&issue=20100926&ss=Post+Magazine&s=Magazines Chain of commands Mainland authorities are detaining individuals for perceived crimes committed online. But how do they access such incriminating information? Paul Mooney Updated on Sep 26, 2010 When Norzin Wangmo used her computer and mobile phone two years ago to communicate with friends about protests in Tibet, she had no idea it would result in her torture and a five-year prison sentence. Detained soon after sending the messages, the 30-year-old Tibetan government worker and writer was accused by officials of using the technology to inform the outside world about civil unrest in Tibet. After months in detention, during which her friends said she was tortured, the five-year prison term was handed down. Few other details about Norzin Wangmo, who leaves behind a young son, are known. No one is sure how Chinese intelligence obtained the details of her communications. But the story is a frightening example of the dark side of internet espionage on the mainland, where people perceived to be a threat to the state are targeted, including ordinary Chinese citizens, scholars, human-rights workers, journalists, diplomats and businesspeople. Many security experts who study China believe the government is being fed information by a loose and shadowy network that includes the hacker community, organised crime and other parts of government, including security agencies and the People's Liberation Army (PLA). "The sheer amount of energy and resources the Chinese government has thrown at this is enormous," says Lhadon Tethong, director of the Canada-based Tibet Action Institute, which helps Tibetans fight for rights, primarily through the safe exchange of information, using sophisticated technology. Many victims of internet espionage are quick to point a finger at the central government. "Who else would attack us?" asks Chine Chan, a researcher for Amnesty International Hong Kong. "It doesn't make sense unless it's the government." Security experts, however, are careful to explain that no smoking gun has yet been found linking the hacking and the use of malware - malicious software designed to secretly access a computer system - to Beijing. Greg Walton, an independent cyber security researcher based in Britain, believes the attacks are the work of groups of players. He points to Chongqing, where there is a concentration of internet espionage control and command centres, as an example. "Chongqing is interesting in that it's like a nexus of organised crime, the party, a big computer-hacking scene and all sorts of PLA installations," he says. "It's a combination of many forces that do these attacks. It's not a secret that the data is ending up with the state. Any other explanation is improbable." Experts say the spying is highly organised and professional, with some hackers working in shifts, even making note of when targets are having lunch or taking breaks. It is also likely that many hackers are working independently and some targets are being compromised by more than one malware group, says Nart Villeneuve, a researcher at the Information Warfare Monitor (IWM), whose members include the Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, the University of Toronto and the SecDev Group, a security consultancy based in Canada. Walton says patriotic hackers are probably selling information to the government, providing it with "another layer of deniability". Since last year, IWM has published two reports on cyber-espionage networks: "Tracking GhostNet: Investigating a Cyber Espionage Network" and "Shadows in the Cloud: An investigation into cyber espionage 2.0." GhostNet is the name investigators have given to a network of more than 1,200 compromised computers in 103 countries, including foreign affairs ministries, embassies, international organisations, news organisations and a computer in the headquarters of Nato. The network's command and control centre appears to be on Hainan Island, home of the Lingshui signals intelligence facility and the Third Department of the PLA. In September and October 2008, IWM investigated alleged cyber espionage on the computer systems in various offices related to the work of the Tibet government in exile and other Tibetan groups. These included the Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, in Dharamsala, India, organisations in the United States, Britain, France, Belgium and Switzerland, and the office of Drewla, an NGO which runs an online outreach project that uses young Chinese-speaking Tibetans to talk with people in the mainland about the situation in Tibet. The GhostNet report said some 70 per cent of the control servers behind the attacks on Tibetan organisations were located on IP addresses assigned to the mainland. During an investigation at the Dalai Lama's private office, Walton observed as documents were being pilfered from the computer network, including a file containing thousands of e-mail addresses and another detailing the negotiating position of the spiritual leader's envoy. During the investigation into the so-called Shadow Network, investigators were able to obtain data taken by the attackers, including some 1,500 letters sent from the Dalai Lama's office between January and November last year. While the report said many of the letters did not contain sensitive information, it added that they allowed the attackers to collect information on anyone contacting the exiled spiritual leader's office. The team traced the attacks to hackers apparently in Chengdu, which is also the location of one of the PLA's technical reconnaissance bureaus charged with signals intelligence collection. Researchers said one hacker, who used the cyber name "lost33", had attended the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, which publishes manuals on hacking and offers courses on network attack and defence security. The authors said an anomaly was detected when analysing traffic from the offices of the Tibet government in exile: computers in Dharamsala were checking in with a command and control server situated in Chongqing. Despite Chongqing Communist Party chief Bo Xilai's high-profile anti-corruption campaign, the city still has a high concentration of gangs said to have ties to the government and which have extended their traditional criminal activities to include cyber crime. While Walton admits no direct link to the central government has been detected, he does not seem to have any doubts about who is behind the attacks. "Some people shy away from saying it's the state," he says, "but there's a growing body of evidence. My own feeling is that sooner or later someone will be able to prove it." The "Shadows in the Cloud" report, which Walton contributed to, points to the existence of a vibrant hacker community in the mainland "that has been tied to targeted attacks in the past and has been linked, through informal channels, to elements of the Chinese state, although the nature and extent of the connections remains unclear". The authors allude to a "privateering" model in which the government authorises citizens to carry out attacks against "enemies of the state". However, the report referred to research by Scott Henderson, author ofThe Dark Visitor: Inside the World of Chinese Hackers. Henderson wrote that there was disagreement about the exact relationship between hackers and the state, running from "authorise" to "tacit consent" to "tolerate". The most plausible explanation, the report said, and the one supported by the evidence, is that the Shadow Network is based in the mainland and run by one or more people with close ties to the country's criminal underworld. The report concluded: "As a result, information that is independently obtained by the Chinese hacker community is likely to find its way to elements within the Chinese state." Lhadon Tethong says security experts she's spoken to consider the cyber war "a lost game" but that she takes a different approach - trying to remain one step ahead of the mainland authorities. "We're looking at new technologies that haven't come out yet and how they can be used in Tibet," she says. "The Chinese government can control your BlackBerry or laptop, but let's look beyond that, at iPads and Android technology [a mobile-phone operating system developed by Google]. You cannot stop it. The force is just too strong. "We worked with young and innovative technical experts and geeks from the beginning," she says. "The optimistic part is that the advances in communications technology are happening so quick that the Chinese bureaucracy can't keep up. Saying you can't do this or that because they're too good is just not true." She cites the microblogging service Twitter, which the authorities managed to block. Before that, Tibetan activists had found it a useful tool for getting their message across both within and outside the mainland. "You can block one site and another will pop up, and it won't take long before people find it," she says. "You can try to control it but there's no way to stop it and I think they know that." Chan agrees. "The trend can't go back. It's important to learn how to get around [the controls]. If civil society grows faster than the government controls, then you win." Meanwhile, the attacks are increasing in number and in sophistication. On March 18, people on the mailing list of Human Rights in China (HRIC) received an e-mail that appeared to be from director Sharon Hom. The subject line - "Microsoft, Stool Pigeon for the Cops and FBI" - convinced many recipients to take a look at the enclosed attachment. Within seconds the e-mail was flying around cyberspace, with thousands receiving it and passing it on to others. But the e-mail was not from Hom. It was a "spear phishing" e-mail that lured recipients to visit a compromised website in Taiwan. Those who clicked on the link unknowingly loaded malware that allowed the attackers to take control of their computers from a server in Jiangsu province. In a report on the HRIC attack, Villeneuve wrote that the malware spread via the e-mail was traced to a command and control centre in Jiangsu. He said the nature of the compromised entities and the data stolen by the attackers indicated correlations with the mainland's strategic interests. But he concluded that "we were unable to determine any direct connection between these attackers and elements of the Chinese state". Earlier this year, a foreign journalist was conducting a text conversation on Skype with Tsering Woeser, a Beijing-based Tibetan poet and commentator, when the journalist received an article over the internet service. When the suspicious reporter called Tsering Woeser to ask about the file, she was not even home. Someone had hijacked her account and started conversations with 30 of her Skype friends, several of them journalists. They even imitated the way the poet spoke. Some were tricked into downloading malware. This was the second hijacking of her Skype account in two years. Most cyber attacks rely on a tactic known as "social engineering", manipulating people to get them to provide computer access through trickery, rather than technical hacking. "At the root it's not technology," Walton says. "The deeper the penetration, the more intelligence they can feed into a social engineering attack. If I look at your computer, I can draft e-mails that you will trust more and more." Robbie Barnett, director of the Modern Tibet Studies programme at Columbia University, in the United States, says the attackers are getting increasingly sophisticated in their use of social engineering. They use the names of people you know, refer to an incident over the past 48 hours, often with a provocative subject, and may even have the actual sender's real e-mail address. He says no one can be 100 per cent safe, no matter what precautions are taken. "Eventually, they hit a bull's eye," Barnett says, "They send you a letter from a Tibetan who's just written to you and could easily be sending something to you. Even if you've been careful for years, you could fall for it." Typically the target receives an e-mail appearing to be from an acquaintance. Often it mentions some sensational detail that lures the victim into opening a file or visiting a website that opens a backdoor, where malware can be planted. Control is often maintained through the use of the Chinese Gh0st RAT (remote access tool). These trojans enable nearly unrestricted access to the infected system. The attacker can then carry out surveillance of the attacked computer, pilfer files and e-mails and send data to other computers, and use the infected computer as a platform to launch future attacks against computers around the world. "It's all part of a trend that I've been watching for a decade," says Walton, "pushing surveillance of the population from the network to the desktop. "Everything you can do, they can do - it's like they're sitting in front of your computer. They can turn on the webcam, the microphone and access documents. Someone is staring back at you through your webcam. It's Orwellian." While much of the activity seems focused on gathering intelligence and disruption of operations, in some cases the attacks are more dangerous. In July, the website of Chinese Human Rights Defenders was shut down several times by direct denial of service (DDOS) attacks. In April, the Foreign Correspondents' Club of China was forced to take its website offline temporarily after being repeatedly hit by DDOS attacks. In January, Google announced it had found "a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property". The attack was said to have targeted the Google e-mail accounts of Chinese human-rights activists. Journalists have also become a target. In April, Andrew Jacobs, Beijing correspondent for The New York Times, wrote an article detailing how his computer had been hacked and e-mails redirected to an unknown address. Jacobs said scores of foreign reporters in the mainland had experienced similar intrusions. Last September, several foreign news bureaus in Beijing began receiving e-mails from "Pam", who said she was an economics editor. The e-mails, which were in well-written English and included a list of genuine contact names, detailed a proposed reporting trip. However, when the attached PDF was opened it unleashed malware. Walton and Villeneuve, who studied the virus, said in a report that the file appeared to be a legitimate document that had been stolen from a compromised computer, which was then modified to include malware and serve as a lure. While they said the malware could not be traced back to the central government, the recipients were Chinese news assistants, whose e-mail addresses were not widely known to the public, but were to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Richard Baum, moderator of Chinapol, an online community of more than 900 China watchers, including journalists, lawyers and analysts, says the group has suffered "a certain amount of leakage" of membership lists and e-mail traffic. Members have also received phishing e-mails. Recently, an e-mail was sent to some members purporting to be the new member e-mail list, which had a malware attachment. Walton says data was being sent back to a computer in Chongqing within 30 seconds of the malware being accepted. In the HRIC incident, a member of Chinapol sent the e-mail to all its members, some of whom in turn passed it on to their acquaintances. What's troubling is anti-virus software used by the general public is not always effective in catching these viruses. In the case of the HRIC attack, there was very low anti-virus cover, with only eight out of 42 anti-virus products detecting the file as malware, the investigation found. In the case of the news assistants who downloaded malware, only three of 41 anti-virus products used by VirusTotal, a service that analyses suspicious files and URLs, detected the malicious code embedded in the PDF file. Fake e-mails also create confusion. A human-rights activist in Hong Kong tells of an e-mail sent out in her name revealing certain information only known to people she worked closely with. "This is their way of saying, `We know who you are and what you're doing', to make you feel scared," she says. "Even if people know the e-mail is not from me, the damage is already done. The next time they'll ask if it's really from me." HRIC's Hom says: "This is seriously raising security issues for us. It makes every NGO, every journalist, every contact ask if they get an e-mail from me if it's real. As a small NGO we don't have the resources, technical expertise and capacity to guard ourselves against such high-level attacks. It makes it very difficult for us to do our work. "How can any organisation, company or government function if communication with other persons or organisations runs the risk of a malware attack that undermines the trust in the organisation? The biggest impact on us is we have to be extremely careful not to compromise the security of the people we're dealing with." One example of this, from the GhostNet report, is that of a young Tibetan woman who was returning to her village after having worked for two years in India. She was stopped at the Nepal-Tibet border by Chinese intelligence officers. The woman was taken to a detention centre, where she was interrogated about her connection with Drewla. She insisted she had gone to India just to study, denying any political involvement, but her claims were waved away. The officers then pulled out a dossier on her activities in India, including transcripts of her online chats about Tibet. She was held for two months and then allowed to return to her village. As a result, many activists are now reluctant to send information over the internet and even delete e-mails from people they don't know or that look suspicious. The result is less information is getting through to the people who need it. "It's caused a lot of problems for me," says Tsering Woeser, who is often under police surveillance. "First, because of my situation, I can only contact my friends through Skype and e-mail, and now some Tibetan friends are afraid to contact me. I'm getting much less information than before. It's a huge interference." Tsering Woeser says her internet activities are constantly probed. In a recent incident, she received an e-card from dissident writer Yu Jie, which turned out to be a phishing spear. She says that at least once a month a person pretending to be a Tibetan attempts to make contact with her online. "But what I worry about most is that the people who are in contact with me may get into trouble and I won't even know about it," she says. Barnett also depends on sources to provide him with news from tightly controlled Tibetan areas. He says he, too, is now receiving far less information than in previous years. "The deterrent effect on people sending information is very effective," he says. "This is having a massive effect on the limitation of outsiders finding out what's happening in China. A lot of it works by fear, intimidation and self-censorship. People are worried about interception." Barnett says this climate of surveillance suggests to anyone considering sending information "that they should think twice". The culture of security in China, he says, means the government only has to go after a few people to have a deterrent effect. "You only have to pick up three people for passing on information and that will deter hundreds of thousands of others," he says. "The system may now be more powerful than us." Walton says there has been a clear increase in the number of incidents this year, although he cautions that this may be due to the fact people are more on the lookout for these things. "There's more awareness and people are suspicious of links and e-mails," he says. "In terms of forward trends, I see a continuous escalation of these attacks. People are being compromised every day and I'm getting examples on a daily basis." Experts say that if Beijing is not responsible for the attacks, it has a responsibility to shut down hackers working within its borders. "I have never and still don't make the claim that it was the government," Hom says. "But if China insists on internet sovereignty and sovereignty over its territory, it has to take responsibility for these kinds of cyber attacks. It has to show the international community that it has taken steps to investigate, track down and end these attacks." Rebecca MacKinnon Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org Cell: +1-617-939-3493 E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Sun Sep 26 12:01:14 2010 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 18:01:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> <51318F66-3D2E-4727-A70B-E2E558F699D2@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4C9F6E4A.5070601@gmx.net> I support the text from Jeremy with Avri's modification. Norbert Klein > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- 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: Cambodia in Its International Context Sunday, 19.9.2010 http://tinyurl.com/36vqyj8 (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 everton.mre at gmail.com Sun Sep 26 18:36:29 2010 From: everton.mre at gmail.com (Everton MRE) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 18:36:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe In-Reply-To: <9194AB1A-C047-488F-8AAB-701CC3400E96@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <9447101F-7ACC-492B-9BAA-0ECA9BFF3EF8@graduateinstitute.ch> <4C9D92F3.5060706@itforchange.net> <9194AB1A-C047-488F-8AAB-701CC3400E96@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: I was also at the CoE workshop in Vilnius that George referred to and I do not recall any "draft Treaty" being circulated or advocated. Saying a "draft Treaty" was proposed by Europe is misleading, to say the least. Having said that, I tend to agree with Parminder: should we embark on a treaty-making path, no single regional group (e.g. CoE) posesses the legitimacy to produce it and then expect it to be adopted globally. There is a basic question of representation involved. In what refers to Internet governance, no global obligation should be created without participation of all States and all stakeholders in their respective roles. Everton Sent from my iPad On 26/09/2010, at 04:55, William Drake wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > Traveling & can follow up more when in front of a computer, but for now would say > > --It's not obvious to me states are all doing as much as you suggest, and in any event much of whatever they may be doing isn't working > --a great deal of the real work is being done by non-state actors, particularly the private sector > --A treaty commitment to other states could create strong incentives to take intrusive steps to avoid being held responsible politically. If you add to that the possibility of actual legal liability for damage$$ the incentive is greatly reinforced. > --A treaty commitment would also provide much political cover/rationalization for any and all securitization steps they might like to take, in the same way post-9/11 fear gets used all over. Just say something is necessary because of security and you can get away with anything. Add to that "we have a treaty obligation" and I suspect it gets worse. > > Best > > Bill > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Sep 25, 2010, at 8:13, parminder wrote: > >> Bill >> >> Adding to my previous comments on the CoE process, which were about >> >> (1) real participative-ness of all global stakeholders in any cross-border Internet treaty discussions, rather then taking the cyber-security treaty and ACTA route towards a new, undemocratic, form of global governance regime, and >> >> (2) the related issue of the implications of this CoE process vis a vis the WSIS mandated 'enhanced cooperation' process. >> >> I am not sure I get the basis of your critical analysis of how mutual-responsibilities across borders will work. Already governments try to take all measures to make sure that no harm is caused by manipulations etc of, and through, the Internet within their borders, right. That is their mandate to do. Reciprocal mutual responsibilities will call for the same or similar care and vigilance to be kept regarding activities taking place within their boundaries but intending and/or likely to cause harm elsewhere. How would that increase surveillance, control etc? It is more or less obvious that no country is likely to be more proactive and vigilant to protect against damages outside its borders than inside its border. The effort is only to prevent them from being remiss, negligent and/or complacent (or perhaps even co-conspirators) in this regard. >> >> The real issue here is how we reach a set of globally acceptable standards of what constitutes harm or damage through and over the Internet. That is the crux of the issue. And I strongly believe that >> >> (1) we cannot figure that out unless we all sit down to discuss it, I mean all global stakeholders >> >> (2) any such global normative discussions. and their likely outcomes, have a high chance of raising the bar in terms of human rights etc then lead us to the lowest common denominator. Yes, thing may not turn out exactly as per our best hopes, but it will be better than how it is now (remember, almost all countries are already able to control traffic flows inside their borders as much as they want to, or will soon be able to do so). In that sense, things could only become better from here if we can move towards some kind of global norms. >> >> Parminder >> >> On Friday 24 September 2010 10:59 PM, William Drake wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> I'm a bit behind on the cross-border mail flow.... >>> >>> On Sep 22, 2010, at 5:48 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I agree with Bill's comments. I was a discussant at that workshop, and I didn't think that the material presented by Rolf was worth significant discussion at the time. >>>> >>> Here we disagree George. I think the initiative merits discussion, and I've been doing that with the group since the Spring. But as I said, there are issues that would have to be worked through to make it clearer and potentially supportable, and even if that were to happen the political prognosis would be fuzzy. Can't do much about the latter, but the former could be tackled so we know either way if there's a there there. >>> >>> Part of the problem derives from the origins. Following the resolution adopted at Reykjavik in May 2009, the Committee of Ministers called for the elaboration of new legal instruments on cross-border flows of Internet traffic and protection of resources critical to net stability, which then led to formation of the Ad-hoc Advisory Group that generated the paper in question. Normally, when a new set of challenges is identified that may merit international cooperation, it's desirable to follow a logical sequence in which the challenges are well specified, the range of options for addressing them are laid out and subjected to cost/benefit analysis, and then possible ways forward are identified for discussion—all with transparency and public engagement along the way. But the ministers seemed to skip to the end and say, let's go for a new convention and get some experts to figure out what it's really about. This seems a bit cart before the horse, like the Framework Convention; >>> the form chosen should follow from a careful specification of the function to be served. It may well be that one could address whatever the concerns are through other. less heavy mechanisms, but a conversation about that isn't happening. The ministers seem to want to position COE as a body that makes Internet governance treaties, as per the persistent invocations at IGF meetings of the cybercrime convention and other instruments governments outside the region are invited to join. Given its human rights orientation, multistakeholder orientation, nice staff, and the people involved in the drafting group, one may feel inclined to welcome such an effort, but that shouldn't mean just signing on to stuff without thinking it through. >>> >>> There are certainly good things in the draft document. Who could argue with these guiding principles: >>> >>> 1. Protection of fundamental rights and freedoms >>> 2. Multistakeholderism >>> 3. Universality of the Internet >>> 4. Stability and security >>> 5. Empowerment of Internet users >>> 6. Openness and interoperability of the Internet >>> 7. Network Neutrality (end-to-end principle) >>> 8. Decentralised management responsibility >>> 9. Development and overcoming the digital divide >>> 10. Cultural and linguistic diversity >>> >>> But here's where I get stuck: >>> >>> 11. Responsibilities of states >>> >>> Which gets spelled out in the second section of the paper, and includes, inter alia, that states should: take take all reasonable measures to ascertain whether activities involving risk of causing significant transboundary disruption to the stability, security and resilience of network resources are taking place within their jurisdiction, assess the possible adverse effects or consequences that such activities may have and provide prior and timely notification and relevant information to potentially affected states; take appropriate measures to prevent Internet users’ involvement in cyber attacks and other forms of malicious use; establish monitoring mechanisms to implement these provisions; and be responsible for their international obligations, including with respect to liability. >>> >>> In short, states would take on legally codified mutual responsibility to each other—and potentially be subject to liability for damages---to ensure that stuff doesn't happen within their territories that can affect information flow elsewhere. That might sound reasonable in principle, but consider what it could entail in practice. For example, signatories would have strong incentives to significantly expand the scope and depth of their surveillance in order to reduce the risk they'll be held accountable if some miscreant sets loose a bit of malware on the world. There's already rampant state-building securitization going on, do we want to advance it by making states responsible to each other to control every teenage hacker etc? Moreover, given that this "unapproved" behavior is going on all the time everywhere, wouldn't this risk unleashing a torrent of consultations and maybe lawsuits? Earlier papers in the process drew heavily on environmental law and liability for cross >>> -border pollution as a starting point, but one wonders if the parallel isn't a little inexact. And then there's other stuff like how to define what constitutes harm that a state should be obliged to prevent, mitigate, take liability and make redress for; is it reasonable to hold states responsible for any and all private activities within their jurisdiction that could conceivably have negative cross border effects; what mechanisms of monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution and the like would be appropriate; how does one balance the priority of human rights, net neutrality, etc with the implied surveillance; is it reasonable to expect that developing countries could meet the sort of requirements envisaged, and what happens if a state fails to fully discharge it duties; is it likely that other non-continental democracies with different legal arrangements and political configurations would sign up for such an effort; and so on… >>> >>> Historically, the mutual responsibility provisions of international telecom law were used to strengthen state power and monopolies at the expense of competition and openness. It's not obvious you'd get a notably better outcome this time. Maybe if it were just a soft law thing, normative… >>> >>> Anyway, I'd think these issues merit thinking through rather than dismissing the whole effort ex ante. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>>> In fact, when word of such a treaty was first posted on this list, I did not even associate it with the workshop in which I participated. This event has been blown out of proportion. >>>> >>>> George >>>> >>>> At 9:11 AM +0200 9/22/10, William Drake wrote: >>>> >>>>> Still more confused and clueless reportage on IGŠ. >>>>> >>>>> 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, regulationŠit'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 rightŠ" >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> *********************************************************** >>> 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 >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > 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 Sun Sep 26 19:16:29 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 19:16:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe In-Reply-To: References: <9447101F-7ACC-492B-9BAA-0ECA9BFF3EF8@graduateinstitute.ch> <4C9D92F3.5060706@itforchange.net> <9194AB1A-C047-488F-8AAB-701CC3400E96@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <368A3CF2-3556-4C20-A8D4-B91B976DD950@psg.com> Hi Everton, When you speak of a treaty are you speaking a intergovernmental instrument? How do you propose that all stakeholders would be included in negotiating such a treaty? Do all nations need to follow the Brazilian model, which while a great example of how one nation did include a multitstakerholder model internally, may not suit all nations or all transnationalr interests. As for the COE or anyone proposing either the form of the basic text of a 'treaty', what is the harm in that. It has to start somewhere. a. On 26 Sep 2010, at 18:36, Everton MRE wrote: > I was also at the CoE workshop in Vilnius that George referred to and I do not recall any "draft Treaty" being circulated or advocated. Saying a "draft Treaty" was proposed by Europe is misleading, to say the least. > Having said that, I tend to agree with Parminder: should we embark on a treaty-making path, no single regional group (e.g. CoE) posesses the legitimacy to produce it and then expect it to be adopted globally. There is a basic question of representation involved. > In what refers to Internet governance, no global obligation should be created without participation of all States and all stakeholders in their respective roles. > Everton > > Sent from my iPad > > On 26/09/2010, at 04:55, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi Parminder, >> >> Traveling & can follow up more when in front of a computer, but for now would say >> >> --It's not obvious to me states are all doing as much as you suggest, and in any event much of whatever they may be doing isn't working >> --a great deal of the real work is being done by non-state actors, particularly the private sector >> --A treaty commitment to other states could create strong incentives to take intrusive steps to avoid being held responsible politically. If you add to that the possibility of actual legal liability for damage$$ the incentive is greatly reinforced. >> --A treaty commitment would also provide much political cover/rationalization for any and all securitization steps they might like to take, in the same way post-9/11 fear gets used all over. Just say something is necessary because of security and you can get away with anything. Add to that "we have a treaty obligation" and I suspect it gets worse. >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On Sep 25, 2010, at 8:13, parminder wrote: >> >>> Bill >>> >>> Adding to my previous comments on the CoE process, which were about >>> >>> (1) real participative-ness of all global stakeholders in any cross-border Internet treaty discussions, rather then taking the cyber-security treaty and ACTA route towards a new, undemocratic, form of global governance regime, and >>> >>> (2) the related issue of the implications of this CoE process vis a vis the WSIS mandated 'enhanced cooperation' process. >>> >>> I am not sure I get the basis of your critical analysis of how mutual-responsibilities across borders will work. Already governments try to take all measures to make sure that no harm is caused by manipulations etc of, and through, the Internet within their borders, right. That is their mandate to do. Reciprocal mutual responsibilities will call for the same or similar care and vigilance to be kept regarding activities taking place within their boundaries but intending and/or likely to cause harm elsewhere. How would that increase surveillance, control etc? It is more or less obvious that no country is likely to be more proactive and vigilant to protect against damages outside its borders than inside its border. The effort is only to prevent them from being remiss, negligent and/or complacent (or perhaps even co-conspirators) in this regard. >>> >>> The real issue here is how we reach a set of globally acceptable standards of what constitutes harm or damage through and over the Internet. That is the crux of the issue. And I strongly believe that >>> >>> (1) we cannot figure that out unless we all sit down to discuss it, I mean all global stakeholders >>> >>> (2) any such global normative discussions. and their likely outcomes, have a high chance of raising the bar in terms of human rights etc then lead us to the lowest common denominator. Yes, thing may not turn out exactly as per our best hopes, but it will be better than how it is now (remember, almost all countries are already able to control traffic flows inside their borders as much as they want to, or will soon be able to do so). In that sense, things could only become better from here if we can move towards some kind of global norms. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> On Friday 24 September 2010 10:59 PM, William Drake wrote: >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> I'm a bit behind on the cross-border mail flow.... >>>> >>>> On Sep 22, 2010, at 5:48 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I agree with Bill's comments. I was a discussant at that workshop, and I didn't think that the material presented by Rolf was worth significant discussion at the time. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Here we disagree George. I think the initiative merits discussion, and I've been doing that with the group since the Spring. But as I said, there are issues that would have to be worked through to make it clearer and potentially supportable, and even if that were to happen the political prognosis would be fuzzy. Can't do much about the latter, but the former could be tackled so we know either way if there's a there there. >>>> >>>> Part of the problem derives from the origins. Following the resolution adopted at Reykjavik in May 2009, the Committee of Ministers called for the elaboration of new legal instruments on cross-border flows of Internet traffic and protection of resources critical to net stability, which then led to formation of the Ad-hoc Advisory Group that generated the paper in question. Normally, when a new set of challenges is identified that may merit international cooperation, it's desirable to follow a logical sequence in which the challenges are well specified, the range of options for addressing them are laid out and subjected to cost/benefit analysis, and then possible ways forward are identified for discussion—all with transparency and public engagement along the way. But the ministers seemed to skip to the end and say, let's go for a new convention and get some experts to figure out what it's really about. This seems a bit cart before the horse, like the Framework Convention; >>>> the form chosen should follow from a careful specification of the function to be served. It may well be that one could address whatever the concerns are through other. less heavy mechanisms, but a conversation about that isn't happening. The ministers seem to want to position COE as a body that makes Internet governance treaties, as per the persistent invocations at IGF meetings of the cybercrime convention and other instruments governments outside the region are invited to join. Given its human rights orientation, multistakeholder orientation, nice staff, and the people involved in the drafting group, one may feel inclined to welcome such an effort, but that shouldn't mean just signing on to stuff without thinking it through. >>>> >>>> There are certainly good things in the draft document. Who could argue with these guiding principles: >>>> >>>> 1. Protection of fundamental rights and freedoms >>>> 2. Multistakeholderism >>>> 3. Universality of the Internet >>>> 4. Stability and security >>>> 5. Empowerment of Internet users >>>> 6. Openness and interoperability of the Internet >>>> 7. Network Neutrality (end-to-end principle) >>>> 8. Decentralised management responsibility >>>> 9. Development and overcoming the digital divide >>>> 10. Cultural and linguistic diversity >>>> >>>> But here's where I get stuck: >>>> >>>> 11. Responsibilities of states >>>> >>>> Which gets spelled out in the second section of the paper, and includes, inter alia, that states should: take take all reasonable measures to ascertain whether activities involving risk of causing significant transboundary disruption to the stability, security and resilience of network resources are taking place within their jurisdiction, assess the possible adverse effects or consequences that such activities may have and provide prior and timely notification and relevant information to potentially affected states; take appropriate measures to prevent Internet users’ involvement in cyber attacks and other forms of malicious use; establish monitoring mechanisms to implement these provisions; and be responsible for their international obligations, including with respect to liability. >>>> >>>> In short, states would take on legally codified mutual responsibility to each other—and potentially be subject to liability for damages---to ensure that stuff doesn't happen within their territories that can affect information flow elsewhere. That might sound reasonable in principle, but consider what it could entail in practice. For example, signatories would have strong incentives to significantly expand the scope and depth of their surveillance in order to reduce the risk they'll be held accountable if some miscreant sets loose a bit of malware on the world. There's already rampant state-building securitization going on, do we want to advance it by making states responsible to each other to control every teenage hacker etc? Moreover, given that this "unapproved" behavior is going on all the time everywhere, wouldn't this risk unleashing a torrent of consultations and maybe lawsuits? Earlier papers in the process drew heavily on environmental law and liability for cross >>>> -border pollution as a starting point, but one wonders if the parallel isn't a little inexact. And then there's other stuff like how to define what constitutes harm that a state should be obliged to prevent, mitigate, take liability and make redress for; is it reasonable to hold states responsible for any and all private activities within their jurisdiction that could conceivably have negative cross border effects; what mechanisms of monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution and the like would be appropriate; how does one balance the priority of human rights, net neutrality, etc with the implied surveillance; is it reasonable to expect that developing countries could meet the sort of requirements envisaged, and what happens if a state fails to fully discharge it duties; is it likely that other non-continental democracies with different legal arrangements and political configurations would sign up for such an effort; and so on… >>>> >>>> Historically, the mutual responsibility provisions of international telecom law were used to strengthen state power and monopolies at the expense of competition and openness. It's not obvious you'd get a notably better outcome this time. Maybe if it were just a soft law thing, normative… >>>> >>>> Anyway, I'd think these issues merit thinking through rather than dismissing the whole effort ex ante. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> In fact, when word of such a treaty was first posted on this list, I did not even associate it with the workshop in which I participated. This event has been blown out of proportion. >>>>> >>>>> George >>>>> >>>>> At 9:11 AM +0200 9/22/10, William Drake wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Still more confused and clueless reportage on IGŠ. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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, regulationŠit'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 rightŠ" >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> *********************************************************** >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Sep 26 21:52:46 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 18:52:46 -0700 Subject: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <07C56FD27EFE4B86A35269EC801B69C4@userPC> I like this idea very much and would be willing to put some time and energy into making it happen. M -----Original Message----- From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 8:35 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rebecca MacKinnon Cc: Janna Anderson; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 I also like to echo the congratulations and thanks, and also one (strange) proposal for the next round. How about, making things "upside-down"? I mean at physical meeting of the IGF, how about making the main speakers and participants all remote? So far, the remote participation and participants are regarded as supplementary, but not given a front-seat status. But think of online chat or conference call where no one is physically present and taking floors as main participants. Everyone is remote. At IGF, we can have the physical participants there, but making most speakers and interactions online, webcast, chat etc. I think it's worth a try so that those who cannot come to the venue still feel they have the main player, with deeper sense of participation and ownership. izumi 2010/9/27 Rebecca MacKinnon : > As a happy remote participant, I too would like to add my > congratulations to all who made remote participation work so well this > year. Best, Rebecca > > Rebecca MacKinnon > Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation > Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org > Cell: +1-617-939-3493 > E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com > Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com > Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack > On Sep 25, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Janna Anderson wrote: > > Great work by Ginger and MANY people who led and assisted in so many > ways. It really is beginning to feel to those who must participate > remotely as if you are really there, on the scene while still so far > away. There’s more work to be done on this, but thanks to the people > who facilitated it in so many ways this year. I was in North Carolina > the entire time, but I feel that between conversations on this list > and on Twitter, the IGF Secretariat’s provision of timely information, > the contributions of organizations like Cisco, the persistence of many > individuals including those who were the catalysts for hubs and remote > moderators that it really was a GLOBAL IGF. > > Congratulations to all! > > Janna > > On 9/25/10 7:56 AM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > >   Remote participation at the IGF Vilnius 2010 raised the bar for > remote participation in international public policy meetings. Not in > sheer volume, although 600+ individuals is a good number, but in > actual inclusion and participation, with 33 registered remote hubs and > dozens of remote panelists, this IGF was indeed a global success. > While there was successful remote observation with excellent webcast, > audiocast and captioning, there was also the possibility of real > remote participation for those who wanted to comment, ask questions > and respond, with the same privileges and priorities as those who > attended in person. > >  The next step will be to ensure that remote participants take > advantage of this possibility, and that remote moderators learn to > transmit the interest and personal power of the comments so that their > impact is tangibly felt in the meeting room. > >  An interesting (unforeseen) development was chat exchanges between > remote hubs on the WebEx platform, as remote hubs gave feedback to > presentations or comments by other remote hubs. > >  Pre-IGF preparations were better than ever, with strategy, planning, > training and information from the first 2010 OC in Geneva. > >  I would like to thank the volunteer remote moderators from the > panels, >  DiploFoundation fellows and the ISOC ambassadors program for their > engagement and precious time and energy; the Lithuania host for their > support and their tech teams; the IGF Secretariat for their support and > follow-up, DiploFoundation for constant backup, and my fellow RPWG members > for their year-round worry, work and dynamic involvement. > >  Thanks to all of the hub organizers for their work to include people > from all over the world in this meeting too. > >  The RPWG will publish a report later this year. We look forward to > your comments and suggestions. > >  Warm regards, >  Ginger > > -- > 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 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Sep 26 22:53:12 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:53:12 +0800 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: <4C9F6E4A.5070601@gmx.net> References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> <51318F66-3D2E-4727-A70B-E2E558F699D2@ciroap.org> <4C9F6E4A.5070601@gmx.net> Message-ID: <601B1814-FA18-4E33-9948-5485795AE6C2@ciroap.org> On 27/09/2010, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: > I support the text from Jeremy with Avri's modification. Of the ten members needed to put this minor change to a vote, we now have: Jeremy Avri Norbert Tijani Izumi Lee Janna ...? ... ... The changes again, with additions in square brackets: 1. Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating committee (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection of appeals team or selection of any other list of nominees needs to be decided. [Whenever possible,] one month will be used to constitute the nomcom and determine the criteria for the selections they are to make, and one month will be used to discuss and decide on candidates 8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be disbanded after the decision is made. [However, in special cases where several different nominating committees would need to be completed in a shortened time frame that did not allow for multiple nominating committees, the co-coordinators may jointly request one nominating committee to fill several functions.] -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 email at hakik.org Sun Sep 26 23:13:39 2010 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:13:39 +0600 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: <601B1814-FA18-4E33-9948-5485795AE6C2@ciroap.org> References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> <51318F66-3D2E-4727-A70B-E2E558F699D2@ciroap.org> <4C9F6E4A.5070601@gmx.net> <601B1814-FA18-4E33-9948-5485795AE6C2@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20100927031425.611CC9086B@npogroups.org> I support the text from Jeremy and modified text by Avri. Hakikur Rahman At 08:53 AM 9/27/2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >On 27/09/2010, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: > >>I support the text from Jeremy with Avri's modification. > >Of the ten members needed to put this minor change to a vote, we now have: > >Jeremy >Avri >Norbert >Tijani >Izumi >Lee >Janna >...? >... >... > >The changes again, with additions in square brackets: > >1. Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating >committee (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled >selection of appeals team or selection of any other list of nominees >needs to be decided. > >[Whenever possible,] one month will be used to constitute the nomcom >and determine the criteria for the selections they are to make, and >one month will be used to discuss and decide on candidates > >8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be >disbanded after the decision is made. [However, in special cases >where several different nominating committees would need to be >completed in a shortened time frame that did not allow for multiple >nominating committees, the co-coordinators may jointly request one >nominating committee to fill several functions.] > >-- > >Jeremy Malcolm >Project Coordinator >Consumers International >Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >Lumpur, Malaysia >Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >CI is 50 >Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer >movement in 2010. >Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect >consumer rights around the world. >http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 > >Read our >email >confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 00:28:12 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 21:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: <601B1814-FA18-4E33-9948-5485795AE6C2@ciroap.org> References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> <51318F66-3D2E-4727-A70B-E2E558F699D2@ciroap.org> <4C9F6E4A.5070601@gmx.net> <601B1814-FA18-4E33-9948-5485795AE6C2@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <771836.98799.qm@web55207.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Hi All I support the text from Jeremy with Avri's modification. Shaila ________________________________ From: Jeremy Malcolm To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Sun, September 26, 2010 7:53:12 PM Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a On 27/09/2010, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: I support the text from Jeremy with Avri's modification. > Of the ten members needed to put this minor change to a vote, we now have: Jeremy Avri Norbert Tijani Izumi Lee Janna ...? ... ... The changes again, with additions in square brackets: 1. Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating committee (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection of appeals team or selection of any other list of nominees needs to be decided. [Whenever possible,] one month will be used to constitute the nomcom and determine the criteria for the selections they are to make, and one month will be used to discuss and decide on candidates 8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be disbanded after the decision is made. [However, in special cases where several different nominating committees would need to be completed in a shortened time frame that did not allow for multiple nominating committees, the co-coordinators may jointly request one nominating committee to fill several functions.] -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 Mon Sep 27 01:08:23 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:38:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Report: cyber-espionage against NGOs, activists and journalists In-Reply-To: <169DB96A-322B-4DBA-A865-5DCA59A83734@gmail.com> References: <169DB96A-322B-4DBA-A865-5DCA59A83734@gmail.com> Message-ID: In other parts of the world, it is not exactly torture and a prison term, but activists, NGOs and journalists can't possibly be euphoric that their communications are private and free of surveillance. China makes news, china is loud in its methods, but elsewhere around the world the same is possibly happening in a lesser degree in a more subtle, undetected form. Can it be argued that other Governments anywhere do not use available technology to monitor activists NGOs and journalists? Sivasubramanian M On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Rebecca MacKinnon < rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com> wrote: > From the South China Morning Post Sunday Magazine. > > > http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.1d923702d0f3d4b2b5326b10cba0a0a0/?vgnextoid=8b50812fd593b210VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=mag&issue=20100926&ss=Post+Magazine&s=Magazines > Chain of commandsMainland authorities are detaining individuals for > perceived crimes committed online. But how do they access such incriminating > information?Paul Mooney > Updated on Sep 26, 2010When Norzin Wangmo used her computer and mobile > phone two years ago to communicate with friends about protests in Tibet, she > had no idea it would result in her torture and a five-year prison sentence. > > Detained soon after sending the messages, the 30-year-old Tibetan > government worker and writer was accused by officials of using the > technology to inform the outside world about civil unrest in Tibet. > > After months in detention, during which her friends said she was tortured, > the five-year prison term was handed down. Few other details about Norzin > Wangmo, who leaves behind a young son, are known. > > No one is sure how Chinese intelligence obtained the details of her > communications. But the story is a frightening example of the dark side of > internet espionage on the mainland, where people perceived to be a threat to > the state are targeted, including ordinary Chinese citizens, scholars, > human-rights workers, journalists, diplomats and businesspeople. > > Many security experts who study China believe the government is being fed > information by a loose and shadowy network that includes the hacker > community, organised crime and other parts of government, including security > agencies and the People's Liberation Army (PLA). > > "The sheer amount of energy and resources the Chinese government has thrown > at this is enormous," says Lhadon Tethong, director of the Canada-based > Tibet Action Institute, which helps Tibetans fight for rights, primarily > through the safe exchange of information, using sophisticated technology. > > Many victims of internet espionage are quick to point a finger at the > central government. > > "Who else would attack us?" asks Chine Chan, a researcher for Amnesty > International Hong Kong. "It doesn't make sense unless it's the government." > > Security experts, however, are careful to explain that no smoking gun has > yet been found linking the hacking and the use of malware - malicious > software designed to secretly access a computer system - to Beijing. > > Greg Walton, an independent cyber security researcher based in Britain, > believes the attacks are the work of groups of players. He points to > Chongqing, where there is a concentration of internet espionage control and > command centres, as an example. > > "Chongqing is interesting in that it's like a nexus of organised crime, the > party, a big computer-hacking scene and all sorts of PLA installations," he > says. "It's a combination of many forces that do these attacks. It's not a > secret that the data is ending up with the state. Any other explanation is > improbable." > > Experts say the spying is highly organised and professional, with some > hackers working in shifts, even making note of when targets are having lunch > or taking breaks. > > It is also likely that many hackers are working independently and some > targets are being compromised by more than one malware group, says Nart > Villeneuve, a researcher at the Information Warfare Monitor (IWM), whose > members include the Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, the > University of Toronto and the SecDev Group, a security consultancy based in > Canada. > > Walton says patriotic hackers are probably selling information to the > government, providing it with "another layer of deniability". > > Since last year, IWM has published two reports on cyber-espionage networks: > "Tracking GhostNet: Investigating a Cyber Espionage Network" and "Shadows in > the Cloud: An investigation into cyber espionage 2.0." > > GhostNet is the name investigators have given to a network of more than > 1,200 compromised computers in 103 countries, including foreign affairs > ministries, embassies, international organisations, news organisations and a > computer in the headquarters of Nato. The network's command and control > centre appears to be on Hainan Island, home of the Lingshui signals > intelligence facility and the Third Department of the PLA. > > In September and October 2008, IWM investigated alleged cyber espionage on > the computer systems in various offices related to the work of the Tibet > government in exile and other Tibetan groups. These included the Office of > His Holiness the Dalai Lama, in Dharamsala, India, organisations in the > United States, Britain, France, Belgium and Switzerland, and the office of > Drewla, an NGO which runs an online outreach project that uses young > Chinese-speaking Tibetans to talk with people in the mainland about the > situation in Tibet. > > The GhostNet report said some 70 per cent of the control servers behind the > attacks on Tibetan organisations were located on IP addresses assigned to > the mainland. > > During an investigation at the Dalai Lama's private office, Walton observed > as documents were being pilfered from the computer network, including a file > containing thousands of e-mail addresses and another detailing the > negotiating position of the spiritual leader's envoy. > > During the investigation into the so-called Shadow Network, investigators > were able to obtain data taken by the attackers, including some 1,500 > letters sent from the Dalai Lama's office between January and November last > year. While the report said many of the letters did not contain sensitive > information, it added that they allowed the attackers to collect information > on anyone contacting the exiled spiritual leader's office. > > The team traced the attacks to hackers apparently in Chengdu, which is also > the location of one of the PLA's technical reconnaissance bureaus charged > with signals intelligence collection. Researchers said one hacker, who used > the cyber name "lost33", had attended the University of Electronic Science > and Technology of China, which publishes manuals on hacking and offers > courses on network attack and defence security. > > The authors said an anomaly was detected when analysing traffic from the > offices of the Tibet government in exile: computers in Dharamsala were > checking in with a command and control server situated in Chongqing. Despite > Chongqing Communist Party chief Bo Xilai's high-profile anti-corruption > campaign, the city still has a high concentration of gangs said to have ties > to the government and which have extended their traditional criminal > activities to include cyber crime. > > While Walton admits no direct link to the central government has been > detected, he does not seem to have any doubts about who is behind the > attacks. > > "Some people shy away from saying it's the state," he says, "but there's a > growing body of evidence. My own feeling is that sooner or later someone > will be able to prove it." > > The "Shadows in the Cloud" report, which Walton contributed to, points to > the existence of a vibrant hacker community in the mainland "that has been > tied to targeted attacks in the past and has been linked, through informal > channels, to elements of the Chinese state, although the nature and extent > of the connections remains unclear". > > The authors allude to a "privateering" model in which the government > authorises citizens to carry out attacks against "enemies of the state". > However, the report referred to research by Scott Henderson, author ofThe > Dark Visitor: Inside the World of Chinese Hackers. Henderson wrote that > there was disagreement about the exact relationship between hackers and the > state, running from "authorise" to "tacit consent" to "tolerate". > > The most plausible explanation, the report said, and the one supported by > the evidence, is that the Shadow Network is based in the mainland and run by > one or more people with close ties to the country's criminal underworld. > > The report concluded: "As a result, information that is independently > obtained by the Chinese hacker community is likely to find its way to > elements within the Chinese state." > > Lhadon Tethong says security experts she's spoken to consider the cyber war > "a lost game" but that she takes a different approach - trying to remain one > step ahead of the mainland authorities. > > "We're looking at new technologies that haven't come out yet and how they > can be used in Tibet," she says. "The Chinese government can control your > BlackBerry or laptop, but let's look beyond that, at iPads and Android > technology [a mobile-phone operating system developed by Google]. You cannot > stop it. The force is just too strong. > > "We worked with young and innovative technical experts and geeks from the > beginning," she says. "The optimistic part is that the advances in > communications technology are happening so quick that the Chinese > bureaucracy can't keep up. Saying you can't do this or that because they're > too good is just not true." > > She cites the microblogging service Twitter, which the authorities managed > to block. Before that, Tibetan activists had found it a useful tool for > getting their message across both within and outside the mainland. > > "You can block one site and another will pop up, and it won't take long > before people find it," she says. "You can try to control it but there's no > way to stop it and I think they know that." > > Chan agrees. "The trend can't go back. It's important to learn how to get > around [the controls]. If civil society grows faster than the government > controls, then you win." > > Meanwhile, the attacks are increasing in number and in sophistication. > > On March 18, people on the mailing list of Human Rights in China (HRIC) > received an e-mail that appeared to be from director Sharon Hom. The subject > line - "Microsoft, Stool Pigeon for the Cops and FBI" - convinced many > recipients to take a look at the enclosed attachment. Within seconds the > e-mail was flying around cyberspace, with thousands receiving it and passing > it on to others. > > But the e-mail was not from Hom. It was a "spear phishing" e-mail that > lured recipients to visit a compromised website in Taiwan. Those who clicked > on the link unknowingly loaded malware that allowed the attackers to take > control of their computers from a server in Jiangsu province. > > In a report on the HRIC attack, Villeneuve wrote that the malware spread > via the e-mail was traced to a command and control centre in Jiangsu. He > said the nature of the compromised entities and the data stolen by the > attackers indicated correlations with the mainland's strategic interests. > But he concluded that "we were unable to determine any direct connection > between these attackers and elements of the Chinese state". > > Earlier this year, a foreign journalist was conducting a text conversation > on Skype with Tsering Woeser, a Beijing-based Tibetan poet and commentator, > when the journalist received an article over the internet service. When the > suspicious reporter called Tsering Woeser to ask about the file, she was not > even home. Someone had hijacked her account and started conversations with > 30 of her Skype friends, several of them journalists. They even imitated the > way the poet spoke. Some were tricked into downloading malware. This was the > second hijacking of her Skype account in two years. > > Most cyber attacks rely on a tactic known as "social engineering", > manipulating people to get them to provide computer access through trickery, > rather than technical hacking. > > "At the root it's not technology," Walton says. "The deeper the > penetration, the more intelligence they can feed into a social engineering > attack. If I look at your computer, I can draft e-mails that you will trust > more and more." > > Robbie Barnett, director of the Modern Tibet Studies programme at Columbia > University, in the United States, says the attackers are getting > increasingly sophisticated in their use of social engineering. They use the > names of people you know, refer to an incident over the past 48 hours, often > with a provocative subject, and may even have the actual sender's real > e-mail address. He says no one can be 100 per cent safe, no matter what > precautions are taken. > > "Eventually, they hit a bull's eye," Barnett says, "They send you a letter > from a Tibetan who's just written to you and could easily be sending > something to you. Even if you've been careful for years, you could fall for > it." > > Typically the target receives an e-mail appearing to be from an > acquaintance. Often it mentions some sensational detail that lures the > victim into opening a file or visiting a website that opens a backdoor, > where malware can be planted. > > Control is often maintained through the use of the Chinese Gh0st RAT > (remote access tool). These trojans enable nearly unrestricted access to the > infected system. The attacker can then carry out surveillance of the > attacked computer, pilfer files and e-mails and send data to other > computers, and use the infected computer as a platform to launch future > attacks against computers around the world. > > "It's all part of a trend that I've been watching for a decade," says > Walton, "pushing surveillance of the population from the network to the > desktop. > > "Everything you can do, they can do - it's like they're sitting in front of > your computer. They can turn on the webcam, the microphone and access > documents. Someone is staring back at you through your webcam. It's > Orwellian." > > While much of the activity seems focused on gathering intelligence and > disruption of operations, in some cases the attacks are more dangerous. In > July, the website of Chinese Human Rights Defenders was shut down several > times by direct denial of service (DDOS) attacks. In April, the Foreign > Correspondents' Club of China was forced to take its website offline > temporarily after being repeatedly hit by DDOS attacks. > > In January, Google announced it had found "a highly sophisticated and > targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that > resulted in the theft of intellectual property". The attack was said to have > targeted the Google e-mail accounts of Chinese human-rights activists. > > Journalists have also become a target. In April, Andrew Jacobs, Beijing > correspondent for The New York Times, wrote an article detailing how his > computer had been hacked and e-mails redirected to an unknown address. > Jacobs said scores of foreign reporters in the mainland had experienced > similar intrusions. > > Last September, several foreign news bureaus in Beijing began receiving > e-mails from "Pam", who said she was an economics editor. The e-mails, which > were in well-written English and included a list of genuine contact names, > detailed a proposed reporting trip. However, when the attached PDF was > opened it unleashed malware. > > Walton and Villeneuve, who studied the virus, said in a report that the > file appeared to be a legitimate document that had been stolen from a > compromised computer, which was then modified to include malware and serve > as a lure. While they said the malware could not be traced back to the > central government, the recipients were Chinese news assistants, whose > e-mail addresses were not widely known to the public, but were to the > Ministry of Foreign Affairs. > > Richard Baum, moderator of Chinapol, an online community of more than 900 > China watchers, including journalists, lawyers and analysts, says the group > has suffered "a certain amount of leakage" of membership lists and e-mail > traffic. Members have also received phishing e-mails. Recently, an e-mail > was sent to some members purporting to be the new member e-mail list, which > had a malware attachment. > > Walton says data was being sent back to a computer in Chongqing within 30 > seconds of the malware being accepted. > > In the HRIC incident, a member of Chinapol sent the e-mail to all its > members, some of whom in turn passed it on to their acquaintances. > > What's troubling is anti-virus software used by the general public is not > always effective in catching these viruses. In the case of the HRIC attack, > there was very low anti-virus cover, with only eight out of 42 anti-virus > products detecting the file as malware, the investigation found. In the case > of the news assistants who downloaded malware, only three of 41 anti-virus > products used by VirusTotal, a service that analyses suspicious files and > URLs, detected the malicious code embedded in the PDF file. > > Fake e-mails also create confusion. A human-rights activist in Hong Kong > tells of an e-mail sent out in her name revealing certain information only > known to people she worked closely with. > > "This is their way of saying, `We know who you are and what you're doing', > to make you feel scared," she says. "Even if people know the e-mail is not > from me, the damage is already done. The next time they'll ask if it's > really from me." > > HRIC's Hom says: "This is seriously raising security issues for us. It > makes every NGO, every journalist, every contact ask if they get an e-mail > from me if it's real. As a small NGO we don't have the resources, technical > expertise and capacity to guard ourselves against such high-level attacks. > It makes it very difficult for us to do our work. > > "How can any organisation, company or government function if communication > with other persons or organisations runs the risk of a malware attack that > undermines the trust in the organisation? The biggest impact on us is we > have to be extremely careful not to compromise the security of the people > we're dealing with." > > One example of this, from the GhostNet report, is that of a young Tibetan > woman who was returning to her village after having worked for two years in > India. She was stopped at the Nepal-Tibet border by Chinese intelligence > officers. The woman was taken to a detention centre, where she was > interrogated about her connection with Drewla. > > She insisted she had gone to India just to study, denying any political > involvement, but her claims were waved away. The officers then pulled out a > dossier on her activities in India, including transcripts of her online > chats about Tibet. > > She was held for two months and then allowed to return to her village. > > As a result, many activists are now reluctant to send information over the > internet and even delete e-mails from people they don't know or that look > suspicious. The result is less information is getting through to the people > who need it. > > "It's caused a lot of problems for me," says Tsering Woeser, who is often > under police surveillance. "First, because of my situation, I can only > contact my friends through Skype and e-mail, and now some Tibetan friends > are afraid to contact me. I'm getting much less information than before. > It's a huge interference." > > Tsering Woeser says her internet activities are constantly probed. In a > recent incident, she received an e-card from dissident writer Yu Jie, which > turned out to be a phishing spear. She says that at least once a month a > person pretending to be a Tibetan attempts to make contact with her online. > > "But what I worry about most is that the people who are in contact with me > may get into trouble and I won't even know about it," she says. > > Barnett also depends on sources to provide him with news from tightly > controlled Tibetan areas. He says he, too, is now receiving far less > information than in previous years. "The deterrent effect on people sending > information is very effective," he says. "This is having a massive effect on > the limitation of outsiders finding out what's happening in China. A lot of > it works by fear, intimidation and self-censorship. People are worried about > interception." > > Barnett says this climate of surveillance suggests to anyone considering > sending information "that they should think twice". > > The culture of security in China, he says, means the government only has to > go after a few people to have a deterrent effect. > > "You only have to pick up three people for passing on information and that > will deter hundreds of thousands of others," he says. "The system may now be > more powerful than us." > > Walton says there has been a clear increase in the number of incidents this > year, although he cautions that this may be due to the fact people are more > on the lookout for these things. > > "There's more awareness and people are suspicious of links and e-mails," he > says. "In terms of forward trends, I see a continuous escalation of these > attacks. People are being compromised every day and I'm getting examples on > a daily basis." > > Experts say that if Beijing is not responsible for the attacks, it has a > responsibility to shut down hackers working within its borders. > > "I have never and still don't make the claim that it was the government," > Hom says. "But if China insists on internet sovereignty and sovereignty over > its territory, it has to take responsibility for these kinds of cyber > attacks. It has to show the international community that it has taken steps > to investigate, track down and end these attacks." > > > > Rebecca MacKinnon > Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation > Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org > Cell: +1-617-939-3493 > E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com > Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com > Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > 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 Sep 27 01:22:46 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:22:46 +0900 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: <601B1814-FA18-4E33-9948-5485795AE6C2@ciroap.org> References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> <51318F66-3D2E-4727-A70B-E2E558F699D2@ciroap.org> <4C9F6E4A.5070601@gmx.net> <601B1814-FA18-4E33-9948-5485795AE6C2@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I support the proposal. Adam >On 27/09/2010, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: > >>I support the text from Jeremy with Avri's modification. >> > >Of the ten members needed to put this minor change to a vote, we now have: > >Jeremy >Avri >Norbert >Tijani >Izumi >Lee >Janna >...? >... >... > >The changes again, with additions in square brackets: > >1. Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a >nominating committee (nomcom) will be posted 2 >months before the scheduled selection of appeals >team or selection of any other list of nominees >needs to be decided. > >[Whenever possible,] one month will be used to >constitute the nomcom and determine the criteria >for the selections they are to make, and one >month will be used to discuss and decide on >candidates > >8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific >decision and will be disbanded after the >decision is made.  [However, in special cases >where several different nominating committees >would need to be completed in a shortened time >frame that did not allow for multiple nominating >committees, the co-coordinators may jointly >request one nominating committee to fill several >functions.] > >-- > >Jeremy Malcolm >Project Coordinator >Consumers International >Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, >TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > >CI is 50 >Consumers International marks 50 years of the >global consumer movement in 2010. >Celebrate with us as we continue to support, >promote 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 gpaque at gmail.com Mon Sep 27 01:39:50 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 01:09:50 -0430 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> <51318F66-3D2E-4727-A70B-E2E558F699D2@ciroap.org> <4C9F6E4A.5070601@gmx.net> <601B1814-FA18-4E33-9948-5485795AE6C2@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4CA02E26.1010306@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 isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Sep 27 01:40:18 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:10:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Report: cyber-espionage against NGOs, activists and journalists In-Reply-To: References: <169DB96A-322B-4DBA-A865-5DCA59A83734@gmail.com> Message-ID: And, from the Privacy list: NYTimes: U.S. wants access to *all* encrypted Internet communications http://bit.ly/b7iSFC (New York Times) On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > In other parts of the world, it is not exactly torture and a prison term, > but activists, NGOs and journalists can't possibly be euphoric that their > communications are private and free of surveillance. China makes news, china > is loud in its methods, but elsewhere around the world the same is possibly > happening in a lesser degree in a more subtle, undetected form. Can it be > argued that other Governments anywhere do not use available technology to > monitor activists NGOs and journalists? > > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > > On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Rebecca MacKinnon < > rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com> wrote: > >> From the South China Morning Post Sunday Magazine. >> >> >> http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.1d923702d0f3d4b2b5326b10cba0a0a0/?vgnextoid=8b50812fd593b210VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=mag&issue=20100926&ss=Post+Magazine&s=Magazines >> Chain of commands Mainland authorities are detaining individuals for >> perceived crimes committed online. But how do they access such incriminating >> information? Paul Mooney >> Updated on Sep 26, 2010When Norzin Wangmo used her computer and mobile >> phone two years ago to communicate with friends about protests in Tibet, she >> had no idea it would result in her torture and a five-year prison sentence. >> >> Detained soon after sending the messages, the 30-year-old Tibetan >> government worker and writer was accused by officials of using the >> technology to inform the outside world about civil unrest in Tibet. >> >> After months in detention, during which her friends said she was tortured, >> the five-year prison term was handed down. Few other details about Norzin >> Wangmo, who leaves behind a young son, are known. >> >> No one is sure how Chinese intelligence obtained the details of her >> communications. But the story is a frightening example of the dark side of >> internet espionage on the mainland, where people perceived to be a threat to >> the state are targeted, including ordinary Chinese citizens, scholars, >> human-rights workers, journalists, diplomats and businesspeople. >> >> Many security experts who study China believe the government is being fed >> information by a loose and shadowy network that includes the hacker >> community, organised crime and other parts of government, including security >> agencies and the People's Liberation Army (PLA). >> >> "The sheer amount of energy and resources the Chinese government has >> thrown at this is enormous," says Lhadon Tethong, director of the >> Canada-based Tibet Action Institute, which helps Tibetans fight for rights, >> primarily through the safe exchange of information, using sophisticated >> technology. >> >> Many victims of internet espionage are quick to point a finger at the >> central government. >> >> "Who else would attack us?" asks Chine Chan, a researcher for Amnesty >> International Hong Kong. "It doesn't make sense unless it's the government." >> >> Security experts, however, are careful to explain that no smoking gun has >> yet been found linking the hacking and the use of malware - malicious >> software designed to secretly access a computer system - to Beijing. >> >> Greg Walton, an independent cyber security researcher based in Britain, >> believes the attacks are the work of groups of players. He points to >> Chongqing, where there is a concentration of internet espionage control and >> command centres, as an example. >> >> "Chongqing is interesting in that it's like a nexus of organised crime, >> the party, a big computer-hacking scene and all sorts of PLA installations," >> he says. "It's a combination of many forces that do these attacks. It's not >> a secret that the data is ending up with the state. Any other explanation is >> improbable." >> >> Experts say the spying is highly organised and professional, with some >> hackers working in shifts, even making note of when targets are having lunch >> or taking breaks. >> >> It is also likely that many hackers are working independently and some >> targets are being compromised by more than one malware group, says Nart >> Villeneuve, a researcher at the Information Warfare Monitor (IWM), whose >> members include the Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, the >> University of Toronto and the SecDev Group, a security consultancy based in >> Canada. >> >> Walton says patriotic hackers are probably selling information to the >> government, providing it with "another layer of deniability". >> >> Since last year, IWM has published two reports on cyber-espionage >> networks: "Tracking GhostNet: Investigating a Cyber Espionage Network" and >> "Shadows in the Cloud: An investigation into cyber espionage 2.0." >> >> GhostNet is the name investigators have given to a network of more than >> 1,200 compromised computers in 103 countries, including foreign affairs >> ministries, embassies, international organisations, news organisations and a >> computer in the headquarters of Nato. The network's command and control >> centre appears to be on Hainan Island, home of the Lingshui signals >> intelligence facility and the Third Department of the PLA. >> >> In September and October 2008, IWM investigated alleged cyber espionage on >> the computer systems in various offices related to the work of the Tibet >> government in exile and other Tibetan groups. These included the Office of >> His Holiness the Dalai Lama, in Dharamsala, India, organisations in the >> United States, Britain, France, Belgium and Switzerland, and the office of >> Drewla, an NGO which runs an online outreach project that uses young >> Chinese-speaking Tibetans to talk with people in the mainland about the >> situation in Tibet. >> >> The GhostNet report said some 70 per cent of the control servers behind >> the attacks on Tibetan organisations were located on IP addresses assigned >> to the mainland. >> >> During an investigation at the Dalai Lama's private office, Walton >> observed as documents were being pilfered from the computer network, >> including a file containing thousands of e-mail addresses and another >> detailing the negotiating position of the spiritual leader's envoy. >> >> During the investigation into the so-called Shadow Network, investigators >> were able to obtain data taken by the attackers, including some 1,500 >> letters sent from the Dalai Lama's office between January and November last >> year. While the report said many of the letters did not contain sensitive >> information, it added that they allowed the attackers to collect information >> on anyone contacting the exiled spiritual leader's office. >> >> The team traced the attacks to hackers apparently in Chengdu, which is >> also the location of one of the PLA's technical reconnaissance bureaus >> charged with signals intelligence collection. Researchers said one hacker, >> who used the cyber name "lost33", had attended the University of Electronic >> Science and Technology of China, which publishes manuals on hacking and >> offers courses on network attack and defence security. >> >> The authors said an anomaly was detected when analysing traffic from the >> offices of the Tibet government in exile: computers in Dharamsala were >> checking in with a command and control server situated in Chongqing. Despite >> Chongqing Communist Party chief Bo Xilai's high-profile anti-corruption >> campaign, the city still has a high concentration of gangs said to have ties >> to the government and which have extended their traditional criminal >> activities to include cyber crime. >> >> While Walton admits no direct link to the central government has been >> detected, he does not seem to have any doubts about who is behind the >> attacks. >> >> "Some people shy away from saying it's the state," he says, "but there's a >> growing body of evidence. My own feeling is that sooner or later someone >> will be able to prove it." >> >> The "Shadows in the Cloud" report, which Walton contributed to, points to >> the existence of a vibrant hacker community in the mainland "that has been >> tied to targeted attacks in the past and has been linked, through informal >> channels, to elements of the Chinese state, although the nature and extent >> of the connections remains unclear". >> >> The authors allude to a "privateering" model in which the government >> authorises citizens to carry out attacks against "enemies of the state". >> However, the report referred to research by Scott Henderson, author ofThe >> Dark Visitor: Inside the World of Chinese Hackers. Henderson wrote that >> there was disagreement about the exact relationship between hackers and the >> state, running from "authorise" to "tacit consent" to "tolerate". >> >> The most plausible explanation, the report said, and the one supported by >> the evidence, is that the Shadow Network is based in the mainland and run by >> one or more people with close ties to the country's criminal underworld. >> >> The report concluded: "As a result, information that is independently >> obtained by the Chinese hacker community is likely to find its way to >> elements within the Chinese state." >> >> Lhadon Tethong says security experts she's spoken to consider the cyber >> war "a lost game" but that she takes a different approach - trying to remain >> one step ahead of the mainland authorities. >> >> "We're looking at new technologies that haven't come out yet and how they >> can be used in Tibet," she says. "The Chinese government can control your >> BlackBerry or laptop, but let's look beyond that, at iPads and Android >> technology [a mobile-phone operating system developed by Google]. You cannot >> stop it. The force is just too strong. >> >> "We worked with young and innovative technical experts and geeks from the >> beginning," she says. "The optimistic part is that the advances in >> communications technology are happening so quick that the Chinese >> bureaucracy can't keep up. Saying you can't do this or that because they're >> too good is just not true." >> >> She cites the microblogging service Twitter, which the authorities managed >> to block. Before that, Tibetan activists had found it a useful tool for >> getting their message across both within and outside the mainland. >> >> "You can block one site and another will pop up, and it won't take long >> before people find it," she says. "You can try to control it but there's no >> way to stop it and I think they know that." >> >> Chan agrees. "The trend can't go back. It's important to learn how to get >> around [the controls]. If civil society grows faster than the government >> controls, then you win." >> >> Meanwhile, the attacks are increasing in number and in sophistication. >> >> On March 18, people on the mailing list of Human Rights in China (HRIC) >> received an e-mail that appeared to be from director Sharon Hom. The subject >> line - "Microsoft, Stool Pigeon for the Cops and FBI" - convinced many >> recipients to take a look at the enclosed attachment. Within seconds the >> e-mail was flying around cyberspace, with thousands receiving it and passing >> it on to others. >> >> But the e-mail was not from Hom. It was a "spear phishing" e-mail that >> lured recipients to visit a compromised website in Taiwan. Those who clicked >> on the link unknowingly loaded malware that allowed the attackers to take >> control of their computers from a server in Jiangsu province. >> >> In a report on the HRIC attack, Villeneuve wrote that the malware spread >> via the e-mail was traced to a command and control centre in Jiangsu. He >> said the nature of the compromised entities and the data stolen by the >> attackers indicated correlations with the mainland's strategic interests. >> But he concluded that "we were unable to determine any direct connection >> between these attackers and elements of the Chinese state". >> >> Earlier this year, a foreign journalist was conducting a text conversation >> on Skype with Tsering Woeser, a Beijing-based Tibetan poet and commentator, >> when the journalist received an article over the internet service. When the >> suspicious reporter called Tsering Woeser to ask about the file, she was not >> even home. Someone had hijacked her account and started conversations with >> 30 of her Skype friends, several of them journalists. They even imitated the >> way the poet spoke. Some were tricked into downloading malware. This was the >> second hijacking of her Skype account in two years. >> >> Most cyber attacks rely on a tactic known as "social engineering", >> manipulating people to get them to provide computer access through trickery, >> rather than technical hacking. >> >> "At the root it's not technology," Walton says. "The deeper the >> penetration, the more intelligence they can feed into a social engineering >> attack. If I look at your computer, I can draft e-mails that you will trust >> more and more." >> >> Robbie Barnett, director of the Modern Tibet Studies programme at Columbia >> University, in the United States, says the attackers are getting >> increasingly sophisticated in their use of social engineering. They use the >> names of people you know, refer to an incident over the past 48 hours, often >> with a provocative subject, and may even have the actual sender's real >> e-mail address. He says no one can be 100 per cent safe, no matter what >> precautions are taken. >> >> "Eventually, they hit a bull's eye," Barnett says, "They send you a letter >> from a Tibetan who's just written to you and could easily be sending >> something to you. Even if you've been careful for years, you could fall for >> it." >> >> Typically the target receives an e-mail appearing to be from an >> acquaintance. Often it mentions some sensational detail that lures the >> victim into opening a file or visiting a website that opens a backdoor, >> where malware can be planted. >> >> Control is often maintained through the use of the Chinese Gh0st RAT >> (remote access tool). These trojans enable nearly unrestricted access to the >> infected system. The attacker can then carry out surveillance of the >> attacked computer, pilfer files and e-mails and send data to other >> computers, and use the infected computer as a platform to launch future >> attacks against computers around the world. >> >> "It's all part of a trend that I've been watching for a decade," says >> Walton, "pushing surveillance of the population from the network to the >> desktop. >> >> "Everything you can do, they can do - it's like they're sitting in front >> of your computer. They can turn on the webcam, the microphone and access >> documents. Someone is staring back at you through your webcam. It's >> Orwellian." >> >> While much of the activity seems focused on gathering intelligence and >> disruption of operations, in some cases the attacks are more dangerous. In >> July, the website of Chinese Human Rights Defenders was shut down several >> times by direct denial of service (DDOS) attacks. In April, the Foreign >> Correspondents' Club of China was forced to take its website offline >> temporarily after being repeatedly hit by DDOS attacks. >> >> In January, Google announced it had found "a highly sophisticated and >> targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that >> resulted in the theft of intellectual property". The attack was said to have >> targeted the Google e-mail accounts of Chinese human-rights activists. >> >> Journalists have also become a target. In April, Andrew Jacobs, Beijing >> correspondent for The New York Times, wrote an article detailing how his >> computer had been hacked and e-mails redirected to an unknown address. >> Jacobs said scores of foreign reporters in the mainland had experienced >> similar intrusions. >> >> Last September, several foreign news bureaus in Beijing began receiving >> e-mails from "Pam", who said she was an economics editor. The e-mails, which >> were in well-written English and included a list of genuine contact names, >> detailed a proposed reporting trip. However, when the attached PDF was >> opened it unleashed malware. >> >> Walton and Villeneuve, who studied the virus, said in a report that the >> file appeared to be a legitimate document that had been stolen from a >> compromised computer, which was then modified to include malware and serve >> as a lure. While they said the malware could not be traced back to the >> central government, the recipients were Chinese news assistants, whose >> e-mail addresses were not widely known to the public, but were to the >> Ministry of Foreign Affairs. >> >> Richard Baum, moderator of Chinapol, an online community of more than 900 >> China watchers, including journalists, lawyers and analysts, says the group >> has suffered "a certain amount of leakage" of membership lists and e-mail >> traffic. Members have also received phishing e-mails. Recently, an e-mail >> was sent to some members purporting to be the new member e-mail list, which >> had a malware attachment. >> >> Walton says data was being sent back to a computer in Chongqing within 30 >> seconds of the malware being accepted. >> >> In the HRIC incident, a member of Chinapol sent the e-mail to all its >> members, some of whom in turn passed it on to their acquaintances. >> >> What's troubling is anti-virus software used by the general public is not >> always effective in catching these viruses. In the case of the HRIC attack, >> there was very low anti-virus cover, with only eight out of 42 anti-virus >> products detecting the file as malware, the investigation found. In the case >> of the news assistants who downloaded malware, only three of 41 anti-virus >> products used by VirusTotal, a service that analyses suspicious files and >> URLs, detected the malicious code embedded in the PDF file. >> >> Fake e-mails also create confusion. A human-rights activist in Hong Kong >> tells of an e-mail sent out in her name revealing certain information only >> known to people she worked closely with. >> >> "This is their way of saying, `We know who you are and what you're doing', >> to make you feel scared," she says. "Even if people know the e-mail is not >> from me, the damage is already done. The next time they'll ask if it's >> really from me." >> >> HRIC's Hom says: "This is seriously raising security issues for us. It >> makes every NGO, every journalist, every contact ask if they get an e-mail >> from me if it's real. As a small NGO we don't have the resources, technical >> expertise and capacity to guard ourselves against such high-level attacks. >> It makes it very difficult for us to do our work. >> >> "How can any organisation, company or government function if communication >> with other persons or organisations runs the risk of a malware attack that >> undermines the trust in the organisation? The biggest impact on us is we >> have to be extremely careful not to compromise the security of the people >> we're dealing with." >> >> One example of this, from the GhostNet report, is that of a young Tibetan >> woman who was returning to her village after having worked for two years in >> India. She was stopped at the Nepal-Tibet border by Chinese intelligence >> officers. The woman was taken to a detention centre, where she was >> interrogated about her connection with Drewla. >> >> She insisted she had gone to India just to study, denying any political >> involvement, but her claims were waved away. The officers then pulled out a >> dossier on her activities in India, including transcripts of her online >> chats about Tibet. >> >> She was held for two months and then allowed to return to her village. >> >> As a result, many activists are now reluctant to send information over the >> internet and even delete e-mails from people they don't know or that look >> suspicious. The result is less information is getting through to the people >> who need it. >> >> "It's caused a lot of problems for me," says Tsering Woeser, who is often >> under police surveillance. "First, because of my situation, I can only >> contact my friends through Skype and e-mail, and now some Tibetan friends >> are afraid to contact me. I'm getting much less information than before. >> It's a huge interference." >> >> Tsering Woeser says her internet activities are constantly probed. In a >> recent incident, she received an e-card from dissident writer Yu Jie, which >> turned out to be a phishing spear. She says that at least once a month a >> person pretending to be a Tibetan attempts to make contact with her online. >> >> "But what I worry about most is that the people who are in contact with me >> may get into trouble and I won't even know about it," she says. >> >> Barnett also depends on sources to provide him with news from tightly >> controlled Tibetan areas. He says he, too, is now receiving far less >> information than in previous years. "The deterrent effect on people sending >> information is very effective," he says. "This is having a massive effect on >> the limitation of outsiders finding out what's happening in China. A lot of >> it works by fear, intimidation and self-censorship. People are worried about >> interception." >> >> Barnett says this climate of surveillance suggests to anyone considering >> sending information "that they should think twice". >> >> The culture of security in China, he says, means the government only has >> to go after a few people to have a deterrent effect. >> >> "You only have to pick up three people for passing on information and that >> will deter hundreds of thousands of others," he says. "The system may now be >> more powerful than us." >> >> Walton says there has been a clear increase in the number of incidents >> this year, although he cautions that this may be due to the fact people are >> more on the lookout for these things. >> >> "There's more awareness and people are suspicious of links and e-mails," >> he says. "In terms of forward trends, I see a continuous escalation of these >> attacks. People are being compromised every day and I'm getting examples on >> a daily basis." >> >> Experts say that if Beijing is not responsible for the attacks, it has a >> responsibility to shut down hackers working within its borders. >> >> "I have never and still don't make the claim that it was the government," >> Hom says. "But if China insists on internet sovereignty and sovereignty over >> its territory, it has to take responsibility for these kinds of cyber >> attacks. It has to show the international community that it has taken steps >> to investigate, track down and end these attacks." >> >> >> >> Rebecca MacKinnon >> Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation >> Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org >> Cell: +1-617-939-3493 >> E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com >> Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From divina.meigs at orange.fr Mon Sep 27 02:00:00 2010 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 08:00:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I support the proposal Divina Le 27/09/10 07:22, « Adam Peake » a écrit : > I support the proposal. > > Adam > > > >> On 27/09/2010, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: >> >>> I support the text from Jeremy with Avri's modification. >>> >> >> Of the ten members needed to put this minor change to a vote, we now have: >> >> Jeremy >> Avri >> Norbert >> Tijani >> Izumi >> Lee >> Janna >> ...? >> ... >> ... >> >> The changes again, with additions in square brackets: >> >> 1. Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a >> nominating committee (nomcom) will be posted 2 >> months before the scheduled selection of appeals >> team or selection of any other list of nominees >> needs to be decided. >> >> [Whenever possible,] one month will be used to >> constitute the nomcom and determine the criteria >> for the selections they are to make, and one >> month will be used to discuss and decide on >> candidates >> >> 8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific >> decision and will be disbanded after the >> decision is made.  [However, in special cases >> where several different nominating committees >> would need to be completed in a shortened time >> frame that did not allow for multiple nominating >> committees, the co-coordinators may jointly >> request one nominating committee to fill several >> functions.] >> >> -- >> >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, >> TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> CI is 50 >> Consumers International marks 50 years of the >> global consumer movement in 2010. >> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, >> promote and protect consumer rights around the >> world.  >> http://www.consumersinternational.o >> rg/50 >> >> Read >> our > 21&int1stParentNodeID=89765>email >> confidentiality notice. Don't print this email >> unless necessary. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 27 02:03:23 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:03:23 +0800 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 27/09/2010, at 2:00 PM, Divina MEIGS wrote: > I support the proposal Thanks everyone, we now have enough support to put this amendment to a vote, which I'll do in conjunction with the coordinator ballot as soon as I have the last remaining candidate's statement and have compiled the latest voter list. No need for more responses until then. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 27 02:13:42 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:43:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: <51318F66-3D2E-4727-A70B-E2E558F699D2@ciroap.org> References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> <51318F66-3D2E-4727-A70B-E2E558F699D2@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4CA03616.6000605@itforchange.net> On Sunday 26 September 2010 11:09 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > 8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be > disbanded after the decision is made. [However, in special cases > where several different nominating committees would need to be > completed in a shortened time frame that did not allow for multiple > nominating committees, the co-coordinators may jointly request > one nominating committee to fill several functions.] > Jeremy Are you sure you will want to use the same nomcom for 'several functions' or instead use the same set of nomcom volunteers to maybe constitute different nomcoms for different functions, especially if they are substantively different, and all very important. This will lead to a greater diffusion of nominating power. Also often nomcom decisions for different functions may need to be made independent of each other. The process bottleneck is not of constituting a nomcom from among those who volunteer, or the work of the nomcom itself. The bottleneck mostly is in people volunteering. So if you enable yourself to use the same set of volunteers to form multiple nomcoms as required, that will work as well. Also like McTim and Jeanette, I really do not think any of these things require a charter amendment vote. They can be done as the charter stand now. Just my 2 cents... 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 27 02:19:24 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:49:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CA0376C.1080704@itforchange.net> Sorry, I see that my input may have come a little too late.... Though, will still request you to consider whether we really need an amendment which will enable us to use the same nomcom for multiple functions but not the same list of volunteers for two or more nomcoms for different functions, especially if these were distinct and separately very important.... But will go with whatever be the process that co-coordinators decide from here on. Parminder On Monday 27 September 2010 11:33 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 27/09/2010, at 2:00 PM, Divina MEIGS wrote: > > >> I support the proposal >> > Thanks everyone, we now have enough support to put this amendment to a vote, which I'll do in conjunction with the coordinator ballot as soon as I have the last remaining candidate's statement and have compiled the latest voter list. No need for more responses until then. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From divina.meigs at orange.fr Mon Sep 27 02:19:06 2010 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 08:19:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 In-Reply-To: <642D367C-C7D6-4B5C-AE74-157498AFCA32@gmail.com> Message-ID: Congratulations! We had a very active participation in our workshop on media education, mostly by young people Divina ^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^= Divina Frau-Meigs Professor, media sociology, University Sorbonne nouvelle, Paris (France) Director, master's programme AIGEME "E-learning and media education engineering" Director, research team CREW (EA 4399) Coordinator, i-lab "digital humanities", PRES Sorbonne Paris-Cité Board Member, ECREA (European Communication Research and Education Asso) Past vice-president, IAMCR (Intl Asso for Media and Communication Research) Head, "Media Education Research" Section, IAMCR website: www.medias-matrices.net ^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^= Le 26/09/10 17:19, « Rebecca MacKinnon » a écrit : > As a happy remote participant, I too would like to add my congratulations to > all who made remote participation work so well this year. > > Best, > Rebecca > > Rebecca MacKinnon > Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation > Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org > Cell: +1-617-939-3493 > E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com > Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com > Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack > > On Sep 25, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Janna Anderson wrote: > >> Great work by Ginger and MANY people who led and assisted in so many ways. It >> really is beginning to feel to those who must participate remotely as if you >> are really there, on the scene while still so far away. There¹s more work to >> be done on this, but thanks to the people who facilitated it in so many ways >> this year. I was in North Carolina the entire time, but I feel that between >> conversations on this list and on Twitter, the IGF Secretariat¹s provision of >> timely information, the contributions of organizations like Cisco, the >> persistence of many individuals including those who were the catalysts for >> hubs and remote moderators that it really was a GLOBAL IGF. >> >> Congratulations to all! >> >> Janna >> >> On 9/25/10 7:56 AM, "Ginger Paque" > > wrote: >> >>> Remote participation at the IGF Vilnius 2010 raised the bar for remote >>> participation in international public policy meetings. Not in sheer volume, >>> although 600+ individuals is a good number, but in actual inclusion and >>> participation, with 33 registered remote hubs and dozens of remote >>> panelists, this IGF was indeed a global success. While there was successful >>> remote observation with excellent webcast, audiocast and captioning, there >>> was also the possibility of real remote participation for those who wanted >>> to comment, ask questions and respond, with the same privileges and >>> priorities as those who attended in person. >>> >>> The next step will be to ensure that remote participants take advantage of >>> this possibility, and that remote moderators learn to transmit the interest >>> and personal power of the comments so that their impact is tangibly felt in >>> the meeting room. >>> >>> An interesting (unforeseen) development was chat exchanges between remote >>> hubs on the WebEx platform, as remote hubs gave feedback to presentations or >>> comments by other remote hubs. >>> >>> Pre-IGF preparations were better than ever, with strategy, planning, >>> training and information from the first 2010 OC in Geneva. >>> >>> I would like to thank the volunteer remote moderators from the panels, >>> DiploFoundation fellows and the ISOC ambassadors program for their >>> engagement and precious time and energy; the Lithuania host for their >>> support and their tech teams; the IGF Secretariat for their support and >>> follow-up, DiploFoundation for constant backup, and my fellow RPWG members >>> for their year-round worry, work and dynamic involvement. >>> >>> Thanks to all of the hub organizers for their work to include people from >>> all over the world in this meeting too. >>> >>> The RPWG will publish a report later this year. We look forward to your >>> comments and suggestions. >>> >>> Warm regards, >>> Ginger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Sep 27 02:46:15 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 08:46:15 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe References: <9447101F-7ACC-492B-9BAA-0ECA9BFF3EF8@graduateinstitute.ch> <4C9D92F3.5060706@itforchange.net> <9194AB1A-C047-488F-8AAB-701CC3400E96@graduateinstitute.ch> <368A3CF2-3556-4C20-A8D4-B91B976DD950@psg.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0718F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi everybody the mandate of the group is to look into the feasability of "a legal instrument" for cross border Internet. Such a broad mandate can include everxything, from a treaty to a very informal arrangement. However sofar nobody has proposed a "new Internet treaty" When we started our work in March 2010 we discussed first how to structure the debate. One outcome of this - and we presented this in a workshop during the EURODIG in Madrid in April 2010 - was to make clear that the "multistakeholder approach" is the basic principle (this means that governmental and non-governmental stakeholders have both a role to play in finding arrangements for cross border Internet). Furthermore we agreed that we do not work towards "one intergovernmental instrument" but towards "formal and informal arrangements among stakeholders". In the background paper for Vilnjus in September 2010 we embedded "rights, duties and responsibilities of states/ governments" into a set of general principles which should constitute the basis for all stakeholders. With other words, the "specific intergovernmental legal norm" should be part of a broader "multistakeholder arrangement". And we said very clearly in the Vilnjus workshop that we have to be very specific and clear in the definition of the concrete issue which needs a specific inter-governmental arrangement/regulation. How to organize this different norms, principles, programmes and processes in a "network-way", based on the Internet Governance definition, accepted by Heads of States in Tunis in 2005, remains the subject for discussion. What we do not plan at this moment is to propose a general new Internet treaty on top of a multistakeholder arrangement. Probably we end up with a number of "intergovernmental protocols" under the umbrella of a general multistakeholder "Framework of Commitments". We have to be innovative here. And this needs more dialogue and discussion. Thanks for the input so far. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Gesendet: Mo 27.09.2010 01:16 An: IGC Betreff: Re: [governance] International Internet Treaty proposed by Europe Hi Everton, When you speak of a treaty are you speaking a intergovernmental instrument? How do you propose that all stakeholders would be included in negotiating such a treaty? Do all nations need to follow the Brazilian model, which while a great example of how one nation did include a multitstakerholder model internally, may not suit all nations or all transnationalr interests. As for the COE or anyone proposing either the form of the basic text of a 'treaty', what is the harm in that. It has to start somewhere. a. On 26 Sep 2010, at 18:36, Everton MRE wrote: > I was also at the CoE workshop in Vilnius that George referred to and I do not recall any "draft Treaty" being circulated or advocated. Saying a "draft Treaty" was proposed by Europe is misleading, to say the least. > Having said that, I tend to agree with Parminder: should we embark on a treaty-making path, no single regional group (e.g. CoE) posesses the legitimacy to produce it and then expect it to be adopted globally. There is a basic question of representation involved. > In what refers to Internet governance, no global obligation should be created without participation of all States and all stakeholders in their respective roles. > Everton > > Sent from my iPad > > On 26/09/2010, at 04:55, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi Parminder, >> >> Traveling & can follow up more when in front of a computer, but for now would say >> >> --It's not obvious to me states are all doing as much as you suggest, and in any event much of whatever they may be doing isn't working >> --a great deal of the real work is being done by non-state actors, particularly the private sector >> --A treaty commitment to other states could create strong incentives to take intrusive steps to avoid being held responsible politically. If you add to that the possibility of actual legal liability for damage$$ the incentive is greatly reinforced. >> --A treaty commitment would also provide much political cover/rationalization for any and all securitization steps they might like to take, in the same way post-9/11 fear gets used all over. Just say something is necessary because of security and you can get away with anything. Add to that "we have a treaty obligation" and I suspect it gets worse. >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On Sep 25, 2010, at 8:13, parminder wrote: >> >>> Bill >>> >>> Adding to my previous comments on the CoE process, which were about >>> >>> (1) real participative-ness of all global stakeholders in any cross-border Internet treaty discussions, rather then taking the cyber-security treaty and ACTA route towards a new, undemocratic, form of global governance regime, and >>> >>> (2) the related issue of the implications of this CoE process vis a vis the WSIS mandated 'enhanced cooperation' process. >>> >>> I am not sure I get the basis of your critical analysis of how mutual-responsibilities across borders will work. Already governments try to take all measures to make sure that no harm is caused by manipulations etc of, and through, the Internet within their borders, right. That is their mandate to do. Reciprocal mutual responsibilities will call for the same or similar care and vigilance to be kept regarding activities taking place within their boundaries but intending and/or likely to cause harm elsewhere. How would that increase surveillance, control etc? It is more or less obvious that no country is likely to be more proactive and vigilant to protect against damages outside its borders than inside its border. The effort is only to prevent them from being remiss, negligent and/or complacent (or perhaps even co-conspirators) in this regard. >>> >>> The real issue here is how we reach a set of globally acceptable standards of what constitutes harm or damage through and over the Internet. That is the crux of the issue. And I strongly believe that >>> >>> (1) we cannot figure that out unless we all sit down to discuss it, I mean all global stakeholders >>> >>> (2) any such global normative discussions. and their likely outcomes, have a high chance of raising the bar in terms of human rights etc then lead us to the lowest common denominator. Yes, thing may not turn out exactly as per our best hopes, but it will be better than how it is now (remember, almost all countries are already able to control traffic flows inside their borders as much as they want to, or will soon be able to do so). In that sense, things could only become better from here if we can move towards some kind of global norms. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> On Friday 24 September 2010 10:59 PM, William Drake wrote: >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> I'm a bit behind on the cross-border mail flow.... >>>> >>>> On Sep 22, 2010, at 5:48 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I agree with Bill's comments. I was a discussant at that workshop, and I didn't think that the material presented by Rolf was worth significant discussion at the time. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Here we disagree George. I think the initiative merits discussion, and I've been doing that with the group since the Spring. But as I said, there are issues that would have to be worked through to make it clearer and potentially supportable, and even if that were to happen the political prognosis would be fuzzy. Can't do much about the latter, but the former could be tackled so we know either way if there's a there there. >>>> >>>> Part of the problem derives from the origins. Following the resolution adopted at Reykjavik in May 2009, the Committee of Ministers called for the elaboration of new legal instruments on cross-border flows of Internet traffic and protection of resources critical to net stability, which then led to formation of the Ad-hoc Advisory Group that generated the paper in question. Normally, when a new set of challenges is identified that may merit international cooperation, it's desirable to follow a logical sequence in which the challenges are well specified, the range of options for addressing them are laid out and subjected to cost/benefit analysis, and then possible ways forward are identified for discussion-all with transparency and public engagement along the way. But the ministers seemed to skip to the end and say, let's go for a new convention and get some experts to figure out what it's really about. This seems a bit cart before the horse, like the Framework Convent ion; >>>> the form chosen should follow from a careful specification of the function to be served. It may well be that one could address whatever the concerns are through other. less heavy mechanisms, but a conversation about that isn't happening. The ministers seem to want to position COE as a body that makes Internet governance treaties, as per the persistent invocations at IGF meetings of the cybercrime convention and other instruments governments outside the region are invited to join. Given its human rights orientation, multistakeholder orientation, nice staff, and the people involved in the drafting group, one may feel inclined to welcome such an effort, but that shouldn't mean just signing on to stuff without thinking it through. >>>> >>>> There are certainly good things in the draft document. Who could argue with these guiding principles: >>>> >>>> 1. Protection of fundamental rights and freedoms >>>> 2. Multistakeholderism >>>> 3. Universality of the Internet >>>> 4. Stability and security >>>> 5. Empowerment of Internet users >>>> 6. Openness and interoperability of the Internet >>>> 7. Network Neutrality (end-to-end principle) >>>> 8. Decentralised management responsibility >>>> 9. Development and overcoming the digital divide >>>> 10. Cultural and linguistic diversity >>>> >>>> But here's where I get stuck: >>>> >>>> 11. Responsibilities of states >>>> >>>> Which gets spelled out in the second section of the paper, and includes, inter alia, that states should: take take all reasonable measures to ascertain whether activities involving risk of causing significant transboundary disruption to the stability, security and resilience of network resources are taking place within their jurisdiction, assess the possible adverse effects or consequences that such activities may have and provide prior and timely notification and relevant information to potentially affected states; take appropriate measures to prevent Internet users' involvement in cyber attacks and other forms of malicious use; establish monitoring mechanisms to implement these provisions; and be responsible for their international obligations, including with respect to liability. >>>> >>>> In short, states would take on legally codified mutual responsibility to each other-and potentially be subject to liability for damages---to ensure that stuff doesn't happen within their territories that can affect information flow elsewhere. That might sound reasonable in principle, but consider what it could entail in practice. For example, signatories would have strong incentives to significantly expand the scope and depth of their surveillance in order to reduce the risk they'll be held accountable if some miscreant sets loose a bit of malware on the world. There's already rampant state-building securitization going on, do we want to advance it by making states responsible to each other to control every teenage hacker etc? Moreover, given that this "unapproved" behavior is going on all the time everywhere, wouldn't this risk unleashing a torrent of consultations and maybe lawsuits? Earlier papers in the process drew heavily on environmental law and liability for cross >>>> -border pollution as a starting point, but one wonders if the parallel isn't a little inexact. And then there's other stuff like how to define what constitutes harm that a state should be obliged to prevent, mitigate, take liability and make redress for; is it reasonable to hold states responsible for any and all private activities within their jurisdiction that could conceivably have negative cross border effects; what mechanisms of monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution and the like would be appropriate; how does one balance the priority of human rights, net neutrality, etc with the implied surveillance; is it reasonable to expect that developing countries could meet the sort of requirements envisaged, and what happens if a state fails to fully discharge it duties; is it likely that other non-continental democracies with different legal arrangements and political configurations would sign up for such an effort; and so on... >>>> >>>> Historically, the mutual responsibility provisions of international telecom law were used to strengthen state power and monopolies at the expense of competition and openness. It's not obvious you'd get a notably better outcome this time. Maybe if it were just a soft law thing, normative... >>>> >>>> Anyway, I'd think these issues merit thinking through rather than dismissing the whole effort ex ante. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> In fact, when word of such a treaty was first posted on this list, I did not even associate it with the workshop in which I participated. This event has been blown out of proportion. >>>>> >>>>> George >>>>> >>>>> At 9:11 AM +0200 9/22/10, William Drake wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Still more confused and clueless reportage on IGS. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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, regulationSit'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 rightS" >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> *********************************************************** >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 27 03:16:12 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 02:46:12 -0430 Subject: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <642D367C-C7D6-4B5C-AE74-157498AFCA32@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4CA044BC.7070508@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 tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk Mon Sep 27 03:24:03 2010 From: tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk (Tim Davies) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 08:24:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 In-Reply-To: <4CA044BC.7070508@gmail.com> References: <642D367C-C7D6-4B5C-AE74-157498AFCA32@gmail.com> <4CA044BC.7070508@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello all You can find the web-cast & twitter messages (an interesting informal part of remote participation...) from Workshop 126, along with links to some short clips extracted from the webcast and posted on Facebook, at http://igf2010.diplointernetgovernance.org/session/ws126 I'll also link the transcript there when it's available. Jovan's blog post on the terminology of remote participation might also be interesting: http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profiles/blogs/how-remote-is-remote All the best Tim On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > I am glad to see appreciation for the remote volunteer team: they worked > very hard. Tx. > > Izumi... that is not a strange proposal at all. Indeed, the Remote > Participation Workshop No. 126 discussion included a proposal that an IGF be > designed that could take place entirely through remote participation: both > presenters and attendees! This may not yet be a practical application, but > it does indicate that remote participation -- or, perhaps 'local > participation' (considering that it is the physical meeting which is in a > 'remote' venue), is evolving to enhance the impact of 'remote' attendees. > > Semantics and definitions underlie verbal discussions, and RP is not exempt > from word play :) This year we emphasized 'engage remotely, connect > locally', and see that this is indeed a mobile and global concept. Who is > really local, who is 'remote'? Is there a better way to describe 'remote' > participation? > > The RP workshop discussion was excellent and moved from applications and > techniques to a more mature level of policy and issues to concretely address > access and inclusion. We will post a transcript online for continued > exchange in comments around the transcript itself. I will post a link to the > discussion once it is uploaded. > > Again, congratulations to everyone, local and 'remote'... IG is behind many > important concepts and innovations, not only multistakeholder (ism) > meetings, but remote participation and well. > > > > 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. > > On 9/26/2010 11:05 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > I also like to echo the congratulations and thanks, and also one > (strange) proposal for the next round. > > How about, making things "upside-down"? > I mean at physical meeting of the IGF, how about making the > main speakers and participants all remote? So far, the remote > participation and participants are regarded as supplementary, > but not given a front-seat status. But think of online chat or > conference call where no one is physically present and taking > floors as main participants. Everyone is remote. At IGF, we can > have the physical participants there, but making most speakers > and interactions online, webcast, chat etc. > > I think it's worth a try so that those who cannot come to the venue > still feel they have the main player, with deeper sense of > participation and ownership. > > izumi > > > 2010/9/27 Rebecca MacKinnon : > > As a happy remote participant, I too would like to add my congratulations to > all who made remote participation work so well this year. > Best, > Rebecca > > Rebecca MacKinnon > Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation > Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org > Cell: +1-617-939-3493 > E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com > Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com > Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack > On Sep 25, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Janna Anderson wrote: > > Great work by Ginger and MANY people who led and assisted in so many ways. > It really is beginning to feel to those who must participate remotely as if > you are really there, on the scene while still so far away. There’s more > work to be done on this, but thanks to the people who facilitated it in so > many ways this year. I was in North Carolina the entire time, but I feel > that between conversations on this list and on Twitter, the IGF > Secretariat’s provision of timely information, the contributions of > organizations like Cisco, the persistence of many individuals including > those who were the catalysts for hubs and remote moderators that it really > was a GLOBAL IGF. > > Congratulations to all! > > Janna > > On 9/25/10 7:56 AM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > > Remote participation at the IGF Vilnius 2010 raised the bar for remote > participation in international public policy meetings. Not in sheer volume, > although 600+ individuals is a good number, but in actual inclusion and > participation, with 33 registered remote hubs and dozens of remote > panelists, this IGF was indeed a global success. While there was successful > remote observation with excellent webcast, audiocast and captioning, there > was also the possibility of real remote participation for those who wanted > to comment, ask questions and respond, with the same privileges and > priorities as those who attended in person. > > The next step will be to ensure that remote participants take advantage of > this possibility, and that remote moderators learn to transmit the interest > and personal power of the comments so that their impact is tangibly felt in > the meeting room. > > An interesting (unforeseen) development was chat exchanges between remote > hubs on the WebEx platform, as remote hubs gave feedback to presentations or > comments by other remote hubs. > > Pre-IGF preparations were better than ever, with strategy, planning, > training and information from the first 2010 OC in Geneva. > > I would like to thank the volunteer remote moderators from the panels, > DiploFoundation fellows and the ISOC ambassadors program for their > engagement and precious time and energy; the Lithuania host for their > support and their tech teams; the IGF Secretariat for their support and > follow-up, DiploFoundation for constant backup, and my fellow RPWG members > for their year-round worry, work and dynamic involvement. > > Thanks to all of the hub organizers for their work to include people from > all over the world in this meeting too. > > The RPWG will publish a report later this year. We look forward to your > comments and suggestions. > > Warm regards, > Ginger > > -- > Janna Quitney Anderson > Director of Imagining the Internetwww.imaginingtheinternet.org > > Associate Professor of Communications > Director of Internet Projects > School of Communications > Elon Universityandersj 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 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 27 06:17:41 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 07:17:41 -0300 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: <601B1814-FA18-4E33-9948-5485795AE6C2@ciroap.org> References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> <51318F66-3D2E-4727-A70B-E2E558F699D2@ciroap.org> <4C9F6E4A.5070601@gmx.net> <601B1814-FA18-4E33-9948-5485795AE6C2@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4CA06F45.7000009@cafonso.ca> I agree if we can establish reasonable fixed limits to "whenever possible, one month...". What is the minimal limit: one day?? A few hours (sorry, stressing the argument...)??? frt rgds --c.a. On 09/26/2010 11:53 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 27/09/2010, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: > >> I support the text from Jeremy with Avri's modification. > > Of the ten members needed to put this minor change to a vote, we now have: > > Jeremy > Avri > Norbert > Tijani > Izumi > Lee > Janna > ...? > ... > ... > > The changes again, with additions in square brackets: > > 1. Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating committee (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection of appeals team or selection of any other list of nominees needs to be decided. > > [Whenever possible,] one month will be used to constitute the nomcom and determine the criteria for the selections they are to make, and one month will be used to discuss and decide on candidates > > 8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be disbanded after the decision is made. [However, in special cases where several different nominating committees would need to be completed in a shortened time frame that did not allow for multiple nominating committees, the co-coordinators may jointly request one nominating committee to fill several functions.] > -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Sep 27 06:40:33 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 07:40:33 -0300 Subject: [governance] Report: cyber-espionage against NGOs, activists In-Reply-To: References: <169DB96A-322B-4DBA-A865-5DCA59A83734@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4CA074A1.7060106@cafonso.ca> There is a legal foundation in the Brazilian constitution which establishes that "confidentialy of correspondence is inviolable". The latest major rewriting of our Constitution is from 1989, when email was a little more than an experiment, but for all legal purposes email is regarded as "correspondence" just as any common letter. If one encrypts email therefore it becomes irrelevant to the Constitution, since its contents are inviolable. But, of course, a Court can legitimately require breach of confidentiality by a designated law official if there is legal ground to prove that this breaching is required as proof against a possible crime, felony etc during a due process of law. However, as much as no one ca be forced to read his or her own letter even if the style is impossible to read by anyone else, so he/she cannot be forced to decode or facilitate the decoding the encrypted content of any message or document. This is also based in established law: no one can be forced to generate evidence against him/herself in any circumstance, or, in other words, we all have a right to remain silent. In practice, a lot of illegal violations of confidentiality (either by wiretapping or outright opening of any correspondence) is committed very frequently by government officials or private entities with or without government involvement, and usually the victim might never know if this happened, how and why. The question then is (assuming the same legal framework is valid in the USA): is the government entitled to open any correspondence on suspicion without a legal and explicit procedure? In other words: does government spying violate those legal principles? I think the conclusion is that, if the government can break this confidentiality without due process of law (and spying is breaking this without due process of law), basic rights are being automatically put at grave risk. However, even if it cannot do that, we will all be at risk of illegal violations by government or other agents. Encrypting digital information seems to be the last resort a citizen has to ensure as much as possible his/her constitutional right of confidentiality I am not a lawyer, so my reasoning might be full of flaws, but this is what I think. frt rgds --c.a. On 09/27/2010 02:40 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > And, from the Privacy list: NYTimes: U.S. wants access to *all* encrypted > Internet communications http://bit.ly/b7iSFC (New York Times) > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Sivasubramanian Mwrote: > >> In other parts of the world, it is not exactly torture and a prison term, >> but activists, NGOs and journalists can't possibly be euphoric that their >> communications are private and free of surveillance. China makes news, china >> is loud in its methods, but elsewhere around the world the same is possibly >> happening in a lesser degree in a more subtle, undetected form. Can it be >> argued that other Governments anywhere do not use available technology to >> monitor activists NGOs and journalists? >> >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Rebecca MacKinnon< >> rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> From the South China Morning Post Sunday Magazine. >>> >>> >>> http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.1d923702d0f3d4b2b5326b10cba0a0a0/?vgnextoid=8b50812fd593b210VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=mag&issue=20100926&ss=Post+Magazine&s=Magazines >>> Chain of commands Mainland authorities are detaining individuals for >>> perceived crimes committed online. But how do they access such incriminating >>> information? Paul Mooney >>> Updated on Sep 26, 2010When Norzin Wangmo used her computer and mobile >>> phone two years ago to communicate with friends about protests in Tibet, she >>> had no idea it would result in her torture and a five-year prison sentence. >>> >>> Detained soon after sending the messages, the 30-year-old Tibetan >>> government worker and writer was accused by officials of using the >>> technology to inform the outside world about civil unrest in Tibet. >>> >>> After months in detention, during which her friends said she was tortured, >>> the five-year prison term was handed down. Few other details about Norzin >>> Wangmo, who leaves behind a young son, are known. >>> >>> No one is sure how Chinese intelligence obtained the details of her >>> communications. But the story is a frightening example of the dark side of >>> internet espionage on the mainland, where people perceived to be a threat to >>> the state are targeted, including ordinary Chinese citizens, scholars, >>> human-rights workers, journalists, diplomats and businesspeople. >>> >>> Many security experts who study China believe the government is being fed >>> information by a loose and shadowy network that includes the hacker >>> community, organised crime and other parts of government, including security >>> agencies and the People's Liberation Army (PLA). >>> >>> "The sheer amount of energy and resources the Chinese government has >>> thrown at this is enormous," says Lhadon Tethong, director of the >>> Canada-based Tibet Action Institute, which helps Tibetans fight for rights, >>> primarily through the safe exchange of information, using sophisticated >>> technology. >>> >>> Many victims of internet espionage are quick to point a finger at the >>> central government. >>> >>> "Who else would attack us?" asks Chine Chan, a researcher for Amnesty >>> International Hong Kong. "It doesn't make sense unless it's the government." >>> >>> Security experts, however, are careful to explain that no smoking gun has >>> yet been found linking the hacking and the use of malware - malicious >>> software designed to secretly access a computer system - to Beijing. >>> >>> Greg Walton, an independent cyber security researcher based in Britain, >>> believes the attacks are the work of groups of players. He points to >>> Chongqing, where there is a concentration of internet espionage control and >>> command centres, as an example. >>> >>> "Chongqing is interesting in that it's like a nexus of organised crime, >>> the party, a big computer-hacking scene and all sorts of PLA installations," >>> he says. "It's a combination of many forces that do these attacks. It's not >>> a secret that the data is ending up with the state. Any other explanation is >>> improbable." >>> >>> Experts say the spying is highly organised and professional, with some >>> hackers working in shifts, even making note of when targets are having lunch >>> or taking breaks. >>> >>> It is also likely that many hackers are working independently and some >>> targets are being compromised by more than one malware group, says Nart >>> Villeneuve, a researcher at the Information Warfare Monitor (IWM), whose >>> members include the Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, the >>> University of Toronto and the SecDev Group, a security consultancy based in >>> Canada. >>> >>> Walton says patriotic hackers are probably selling information to the >>> government, providing it with "another layer of deniability". >>> >>> Since last year, IWM has published two reports on cyber-espionage >>> networks: "Tracking GhostNet: Investigating a Cyber Espionage Network" and >>> "Shadows in the Cloud: An investigation into cyber espionage 2.0." >>> >>> GhostNet is the name investigators have given to a network of more than >>> 1,200 compromised computers in 103 countries, including foreign affairs >>> ministries, embassies, international organisations, news organisations and a >>> computer in the headquarters of Nato. The network's command and control >>> centre appears to be on Hainan Island, home of the Lingshui signals >>> intelligence facility and the Third Department of the PLA. >>> >>> In September and October 2008, IWM investigated alleged cyber espionage on >>> the computer systems in various offices related to the work of the Tibet >>> government in exile and other Tibetan groups. These included the Office of >>> His Holiness the Dalai Lama, in Dharamsala, India, organisations in the >>> United States, Britain, France, Belgium and Switzerland, and the office of >>> Drewla, an NGO which runs an online outreach project that uses young >>> Chinese-speaking Tibetans to talk with people in the mainland about the >>> situation in Tibet. >>> >>> The GhostNet report said some 70 per cent of the control servers behind >>> the attacks on Tibetan organisations were located on IP addresses assigned >>> to the mainland. >>> >>> During an investigation at the Dalai Lama's private office, Walton >>> observed as documents were being pilfered from the computer network, >>> including a file containing thousands of e-mail addresses and another >>> detailing the negotiating position of the spiritual leader's envoy. >>> >>> During the investigation into the so-called Shadow Network, investigators >>> were able to obtain data taken by the attackers, including some 1,500 >>> letters sent from the Dalai Lama's office between January and November last >>> year. While the report said many of the letters did not contain sensitive >>> information, it added that they allowed the attackers to collect information >>> on anyone contacting the exiled spiritual leader's office. >>> >>> The team traced the attacks to hackers apparently in Chengdu, which is >>> also the location of one of the PLA's technical reconnaissance bureaus >>> charged with signals intelligence collection. Researchers said one hacker, >>> who used the cyber name "lost33", had attended the University of Electronic >>> Science and Technology of China, which publishes manuals on hacking and >>> offers courses on network attack and defence security. >>> >>> The authors said an anomaly was detected when analysing traffic from the >>> offices of the Tibet government in exile: computers in Dharamsala were >>> checking in with a command and control server situated in Chongqing. Despite >>> Chongqing Communist Party chief Bo Xilai's high-profile anti-corruption >>> campaign, the city still has a high concentration of gangs said to have ties >>> to the government and which have extended their traditional criminal >>> activities to include cyber crime. >>> >>> While Walton admits no direct link to the central government has been >>> detected, he does not seem to have any doubts about who is behind the >>> attacks. >>> >>> "Some people shy away from saying it's the state," he says, "but there's a >>> growing body of evidence. My own feeling is that sooner or later someone >>> will be able to prove it." >>> >>> The "Shadows in the Cloud" report, which Walton contributed to, points to >>> the existence of a vibrant hacker community in the mainland "that has been >>> tied to targeted attacks in the past and has been linked, through informal >>> channels, to elements of the Chinese state, although the nature and extent >>> of the connections remains unclear". >>> >>> The authors allude to a "privateering" model in which the government >>> authorises citizens to carry out attacks against "enemies of the state". >>> However, the report referred to research by Scott Henderson, author ofThe >>> Dark Visitor: Inside the World of Chinese Hackers. Henderson wrote that >>> there was disagreement about the exact relationship between hackers and the >>> state, running from "authorise" to "tacit consent" to "tolerate". >>> >>> The most plausible explanation, the report said, and the one supported by >>> the evidence, is that the Shadow Network is based in the mainland and run by >>> one or more people with close ties to the country's criminal underworld. >>> >>> The report concluded: "As a result, information that is independently >>> obtained by the Chinese hacker community is likely to find its way to >>> elements within the Chinese state." >>> >>> Lhadon Tethong says security experts she's spoken to consider the cyber >>> war "a lost game" but that she takes a different approach - trying to remain >>> one step ahead of the mainland authorities. >>> >>> "We're looking at new technologies that haven't come out yet and how they >>> can be used in Tibet," she says. "The Chinese government can control your >>> BlackBerry or laptop, but let's look beyond that, at iPads and Android >>> technology [a mobile-phone operating system developed by Google]. You cannot >>> stop it. The force is just too strong. >>> >>> "We worked with young and innovative technical experts and geeks from the >>> beginning," she says. "The optimistic part is that the advances in >>> communications technology are happening so quick that the Chinese >>> bureaucracy can't keep up. Saying you can't do this or that because they're >>> too good is just not true." >>> >>> She cites the microblogging service Twitter, which the authorities managed >>> to block. Before that, Tibetan activists had found it a useful tool for >>> getting their message across both within and outside the mainland. >>> >>> "You can block one site and another will pop up, and it won't take long >>> before people find it," she says. "You can try to control it but there's no >>> way to stop it and I think they know that." >>> >>> Chan agrees. "The trend can't go back. It's important to learn how to get >>> around [the controls]. If civil society grows faster than the government >>> controls, then you win." >>> >>> Meanwhile, the attacks are increasing in number and in sophistication. >>> >>> On March 18, people on the mailing list of Human Rights in China (HRIC) >>> received an e-mail that appeared to be from director Sharon Hom. The subject >>> line - "Microsoft, Stool Pigeon for the Cops and FBI" - convinced many >>> recipients to take a look at the enclosed attachment. Within seconds the >>> e-mail was flying around cyberspace, with thousands receiving it and passing >>> it on to others. >>> >>> But the e-mail was not from Hom. It was a "spear phishing" e-mail that >>> lured recipients to visit a compromised website in Taiwan. Those who clicked >>> on the link unknowingly loaded malware that allowed the attackers to take >>> control of their computers from a server in Jiangsu province. >>> >>> In a report on the HRIC attack, Villeneuve wrote that the malware spread >>> via the e-mail was traced to a command and control centre in Jiangsu. He >>> said the nature of the compromised entities and the data stolen by the >>> attackers indicated correlations with the mainland's strategic interests. >>> But he concluded that "we were unable to determine any direct connection >>> between these attackers and elements of the Chinese state". >>> >>> Earlier this year, a foreign journalist was conducting a text conversation >>> on Skype with Tsering Woeser, a Beijing-based Tibetan poet and commentator, >>> when the journalist received an article over the internet service. When the >>> suspicious reporter called Tsering Woeser to ask about the file, she was not >>> even home. Someone had hijacked her account and started conversations with >>> 30 of her Skype friends, several of them journalists. They even imitated the >>> way the poet spoke. Some were tricked into downloading malware. This was the >>> second hijacking of her Skype account in two years. >>> >>> Most cyber attacks rely on a tactic known as "social engineering", >>> manipulating people to get them to provide computer access through trickery, >>> rather than technical hacking. >>> >>> "At the root it's not technology," Walton says. "The deeper the >>> penetration, the more intelligence they can feed into a social engineering >>> attack. If I look at your computer, I can draft e-mails that you will trust >>> more and more." >>> >>> Robbie Barnett, director of the Modern Tibet Studies programme at Columbia >>> University, in the United States, says the attackers are getting >>> increasingly sophisticated in their use of social engineering. They use the >>> names of people you know, refer to an incident over the past 48 hours, often >>> with a provocative subject, and may even have the actual sender's real >>> e-mail address. He says no one can be 100 per cent safe, no matter what >>> precautions are taken. >>> >>> "Eventually, they hit a bull's eye," Barnett says, "They send you a letter >>> from a Tibetan who's just written to you and could easily be sending >>> something to you. Even if you've been careful for years, you could fall for >>> it." >>> >>> Typically the target receives an e-mail appearing to be from an >>> acquaintance. Often it mentions some sensational detail that lures the >>> victim into opening a file or visiting a website that opens a backdoor, >>> where malware can be planted. >>> >>> Control is often maintained through the use of the Chinese Gh0st RAT >>> (remote access tool). These trojans enable nearly unrestricted access to the >>> infected system. The attacker can then carry out surveillance of the >>> attacked computer, pilfer files and e-mails and send data to other >>> computers, and use the infected computer as a platform to launch future >>> attacks against computers around the world. >>> >>> "It's all part of a trend that I've been watching for a decade," says >>> Walton, "pushing surveillance of the population from the network to the >>> desktop. >>> >>> "Everything you can do, they can do - it's like they're sitting in front >>> of your computer. They can turn on the webcam, the microphone and access >>> documents. Someone is staring back at you through your webcam. It's >>> Orwellian." >>> >>> While much of the activity seems focused on gathering intelligence and >>> disruption of operations, in some cases the attacks are more dangerous. In >>> July, the website of Chinese Human Rights Defenders was shut down several >>> times by direct denial of service (DDOS) attacks. In April, the Foreign >>> Correspondents' Club of China was forced to take its website offline >>> temporarily after being repeatedly hit by DDOS attacks. >>> >>> In January, Google announced it had found "a highly sophisticated and >>> targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that >>> resulted in the theft of intellectual property". The attack was said to have >>> targeted the Google e-mail accounts of Chinese human-rights activists. >>> >>> Journalists have also become a target. In April, Andrew Jacobs, Beijing >>> correspondent for The New York Times, wrote an article detailing how his >>> computer had been hacked and e-mails redirected to an unknown address. >>> Jacobs said scores of foreign reporters in the mainland had experienced >>> similar intrusions. >>> >>> Last September, several foreign news bureaus in Beijing began receiving >>> e-mails from "Pam", who said she was an economics editor. The e-mails, which >>> were in well-written English and included a list of genuine contact names, >>> detailed a proposed reporting trip. However, when the attached PDF was >>> opened it unleashed malware. >>> >>> Walton and Villeneuve, who studied the virus, said in a report that the >>> file appeared to be a legitimate document that had been stolen from a >>> compromised computer, which was then modified to include malware and serve >>> as a lure. While they said the malware could not be traced back to the >>> central government, the recipients were Chinese news assistants, whose >>> e-mail addresses were not widely known to the public, but were to the >>> Ministry of Foreign Affairs. >>> >>> Richard Baum, moderator of Chinapol, an online community of more than 900 >>> China watchers, including journalists, lawyers and analysts, says the group >>> has suffered "a certain amount of leakage" of membership lists and e-mail >>> traffic. Members have also received phishing e-mails. Recently, an e-mail >>> was sent to some members purporting to be the new member e-mail list, which >>> had a malware attachment. >>> >>> Walton says data was being sent back to a computer in Chongqing within 30 >>> seconds of the malware being accepted. >>> >>> In the HRIC incident, a member of Chinapol sent the e-mail to all its >>> members, some of whom in turn passed it on to their acquaintances. >>> >>> What's troubling is anti-virus software used by the general public is not >>> always effective in catching these viruses. In the case of the HRIC attack, >>> there was very low anti-virus cover, with only eight out of 42 anti-virus >>> products detecting the file as malware, the investigation found. In the case >>> of the news assistants who downloaded malware, only three of 41 anti-virus >>> products used by VirusTotal, a service that analyses suspicious files and >>> URLs, detected the malicious code embedded in the PDF file. >>> >>> Fake e-mails also create confusion. A human-rights activist in Hong Kong >>> tells of an e-mail sent out in her name revealing certain information only >>> known to people she worked closely with. >>> >>> "This is their way of saying, `We know who you are and what you're doing', >>> to make you feel scared," she says. "Even if people know the e-mail is not >>> from me, the damage is already done. The next time they'll ask if it's >>> really from me." >>> >>> HRIC's Hom says: "This is seriously raising security issues for us. It >>> makes every NGO, every journalist, every contact ask if they get an e-mail >>> from me if it's real. As a small NGO we don't have the resources, technical >>> expertise and capacity to guard ourselves against such high-level attacks. >>> It makes it very difficult for us to do our work. >>> >>> "How can any organisation, company or government function if communication >>> with other persons or organisations runs the risk of a malware attack that >>> undermines the trust in the organisation? The biggest impact on us is we >>> have to be extremely careful not to compromise the security of the people >>> we're dealing with." >>> >>> One example of this, from the GhostNet report, is that of a young Tibetan >>> woman who was returning to her village after having worked for two years in >>> India. She was stopped at the Nepal-Tibet border by Chinese intelligence >>> officers. The woman was taken to a detention centre, where she was >>> interrogated about her connection with Drewla. >>> >>> She insisted she had gone to India just to study, denying any political >>> involvement, but her claims were waved away. The officers then pulled out a >>> dossier on her activities in India, including transcripts of her online >>> chats about Tibet. >>> >>> She was held for two months and then allowed to return to her village. >>> >>> As a result, many activists are now reluctant to send information over the >>> internet and even delete e-mails from people they don't know or that look >>> suspicious. The result is less information is getting through to the people >>> who need it. >>> >>> "It's caused a lot of problems for me," says Tsering Woeser, who is often >>> under police surveillance. "First, because of my situation, I can only >>> contact my friends through Skype and e-mail, and now some Tibetan friends >>> are afraid to contact me. I'm getting much less information than before. >>> It's a huge interference." >>> >>> Tsering Woeser says her internet activities are constantly probed. In a >>> recent incident, she received an e-card from dissident writer Yu Jie, which >>> turned out to be a phishing spear. She says that at least once a month a >>> person pretending to be a Tibetan attempts to make contact with her online. >>> >>> "But what I worry about most is that the people who are in contact with me >>> may get into trouble and I won't even know about it," she says. >>> >>> Barnett also depends on sources to provide him with news from tightly >>> controlled Tibetan areas. He says he, too, is now receiving far less >>> information than in previous years. "The deterrent effect on people sending >>> information is very effective," he says. "This is having a massive effect on >>> the limitation of outsiders finding out what's happening in China. A lot of >>> it works by fear, intimidation and self-censorship. People are worried about >>> interception." >>> >>> Barnett says this climate of surveillance suggests to anyone considering >>> sending information "that they should think twice". >>> >>> The culture of security in China, he says, means the government only has >>> to go after a few people to have a deterrent effect. >>> >>> "You only have to pick up three people for passing on information and that >>> will deter hundreds of thousands of others," he says. "The system may now be >>> more powerful than us." >>> >>> Walton says there has been a clear increase in the number of incidents >>> this year, although he cautions that this may be due to the fact people are >>> more on the lookout for these things. >>> >>> "There's more awareness and people are suspicious of links and e-mails," >>> he says. "In terms of forward trends, I see a continuous escalation of these >>> attacks. People are being compromised every day and I'm getting examples on >>> a daily basis." >>> >>> Experts say that if Beijing is not responsible for the attacks, it has a >>> responsibility to shut down hackers working within its borders. >>> >>> "I have never and still don't make the claim that it was the government," >>> Hom says. "But if China insists on internet sovereignty and sovereignty over >>> its territory, it has to take responsibility for these kinds of cyber >>> attacks. It has to show the international community that it has taken steps >>> to investigate, track down and end these attacks." >>> >>> >>> >>> Rebecca MacKinnon >>> Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation >>> Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org >>> Cell: +1-617-939-3493 >>> E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com >>> Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com >>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Sep 27 06:44:55 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:44:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: <4CA06F45.7000009@cafonso.ca> References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> <51318F66-3D2E-4727-A70B-E2E558F699D2@ciroap.org> <4C9F6E4A.5070601@gmx.net> <601B1814-FA18-4E33-9948-5485795AE6C2@ciroap.org> <4CA06F45.7000009@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I believe with Carlos, we must set a timing. In fact, my silence must be considered for affirmative support for the proposals made by Jeremy and amended by Avri. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN 2010/9/27 Carlos A. Afonso > I agree if we can establish reasonable fixed limits to "whenever possible, > one month...". What is the minimal limit: one day?? A few hours (sorry, > stressing the argument...)??? > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > > On 09/26/2010 11:53 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 27/09/2010, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: >> >> I support the text from Jeremy with Avri's modification. >>> >> >> Of the ten members needed to put this minor change to a vote, we now have: >> >> Jeremy >> Avri >> Norbert >> Tijani >> Izumi >> Lee >> Janna >> ...? >> ... >> ... >> >> The changes again, with additions in square brackets: >> >> 1. Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating committee >> (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection of appeals >> team or selection of any other list of nominees needs to be decided. >> >> [Whenever possible,] one month will be used to constitute the nomcom and >> determine the criteria for the selections they are to make, and one month >> will be used to discuss and decide on candidates >> >> 8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be >> disbanded after the decision is made. [However, in special cases where >> several different nominating committees would need to be completed in a >> shortened time frame that did not allow for multiple nominating committees, >> the co-coordinators may jointly request one nominating committee to fill >> several functions.] >> >> > -- > > 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Mon Sep 27 06:47:04 2010 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 06:47:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: <4CA02E26.1010306@paque.net> References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> <51318F66-3D2E-4727-A70B-E2E558F699D2@ciroap.org> <4C9F6E4A.5070601@gmx.net> <601B1814-FA18-4E33-9948-5485795AE6C2@ciroap.org> <4CA02E26.1010306@paque.net> Message-ID: I support the amended proposal as well. Jacqueline On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > I support. the text from Jeremy with Avri's modification. > > On 9/27/2010 12:52 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > I support the proposal. > > Adam > > > > On 27/09/2010, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: > > I support the text from Jeremy with Avri's modification. > > > Of the ten members needed to put this minor change to a vote, we now have: > > Jeremy > Avri > Norbert > Tijani > Izumi > Lee > Janna > ...? > ... > ... > > The changes again, with additions in square brackets: > > 1. Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating committee > (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection of appeals > team or selection of any other list of nominees needs to be decided. > > [Whenever possible,] one month will be used to constitute the nomcom and > determine the criteria for the selections they are to make, and one month > will be used to discuss and decide on candidates > > 8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be > disbanded after the decision is made. [However, in special cases where > several different nominating committees would need to be completed in a > shortened time frame that did not allow for multiple nominating committees, > the co-coordinators may jointly request one nominating committee to fill > several functions.] > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > CI is 50 > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer > rights around the world. > > http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 > > Read our > email > confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Mon Sep 27 07:51:36 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 07:51:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: <4CA06F45.7000009@cafonso.ca> References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> <51318F66-3D2E-4727-A70B-E2E558F699D2@ciroap.org> <4C9F6E4A.5070601@gmx.net> <601B1814-FA18-4E33-9948-5485795AE6C2@ciroap.org> <4CA06F45.7000009@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <58A2B2FA-57A3-40EF-BB57-F7C1EB494561@psg.com> Hi, I figure this can be left to the co-coorodinators. we choose them to be reasonable. And if enough of us think they behaved unreasonably we can pounce on them on the list and if necessary in appeal. While it still has not been used, I feel the appeals mechanisms is a good deterrent to precipitous and unreasonable behavior. if we define each of these things to its minutia we will have a very long set of rules and procedures and need a staff to start creating complicated pictorial process explanations and freaky straightjacket forms (oh no, that was a nightmare from my other avocation, never mind) One think I disagree with Jeremy on: > Thanks everyone, we now have enough support to put this amendment to a vote, which I'll do in conjunction with the coordinator ballot as soon as I have the last remaining candidate's statement and have compiled the latest voter list. No need for more responses until then. Well actually now that it is up for a vote, it is reasonable that we discuss it to the extent that people will feel informed when voting for or against it. You have you 10 champions for the idea. But approving an amendment takes a fair number of voters. I.e. 2/3 of those who are currently deemed as members based on the previous vote. Getting 2/3 is never a shoe in. So people asking questions about why and whether seems a good idea to me. Of course I am sure Jeremy did not really mean that we should stop talking about, it just read that way to me. so i pounced. a. On 27 Sep 2010, at 06:17, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I agree if we can establish reasonable fixed limits to "whenever possible, one month...". What is the minimal limit: one day?? A few hours (sorry, stressing the argument...)??? > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 09/26/2010 11:53 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 27/09/2010, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: >> >>> I support the text from Jeremy with Avri's modification. >> >> Of the ten members needed to put this minor change to a vote, we now have: >> >> Jeremy >> Avri >> Norbert >> Tijani >> Izumi >> Lee >> Janna >> ...? >> ... >> ... >> >> The changes again, with additions in square brackets: >> >> 1. Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating committee (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection of appeals team or selection of any other list of nominees needs to be decided. >> >> [Whenever possible,] one month will be used to constitute the nomcom and determine the criteria for the selections they are to make, and one month will be used to discuss and decide on candidates >> >> 8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be disbanded after the decision is made. [However, in special cases where several different nominating committees would need to be completed in a shortened time frame that did not allow for multiple nominating committees, the co-coordinators may jointly request one nominating committee to fill several functions.] >> > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > CGI.br (www.cgi.br) > Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) > ==================================== > new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca > ==================================== > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Mon Sep 27 10:02:04 2010 From: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com (Rebecca MacKinnon) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:02:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] NYT report on Obama admin's wiretap plans In-Reply-To: <4CA074A1.7060106@cafonso.ca> References: <169DB96A-322B-4DBA-A865-5DCA59A83734@gmail.com> <4CA074A1.7060106@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <372E43A9-E7EA-48CA-A79E-3D6875DCF903@gmail.com> I recommend Glenn Greenwald's comparison of the Obama admin's latest moves with the UAE/Blackberry situation, which the administration criticized: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/27/privacy/index.html If the bill described by the NYT were to be passed into law, am I correct in my understanding that tools like Tor would be illegal and/or impossible to develop and operate in the U.S.? Best, Rebecca On Sep 27, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > There is a legal foundation in the Brazilian constitution which establishes that "confidentialy of correspondence is inviolable". The latest major rewriting of our Constitution is from 1989, when email was a little more than an experiment, but for all legal purposes email is regarded as "correspondence" just as any common letter. If one encrypts email therefore it becomes irrelevant to the Constitution, since its contents are inviolable. > > But, of course, a Court can legitimately require breach of confidentiality by a designated law official if there is legal ground to prove that this breaching is required as proof against a possible crime, felony etc during a due process of law. However, as much as no one ca be forced to read his or her own letter even if the style is impossible to read by anyone else, so he/she cannot be forced to decode or facilitate the decoding the encrypted content of any message or document. This is also based in established law: no one can be forced to generate evidence against him/herself in any circumstance, or, in other words, we all have a right to remain silent. > > In practice, a lot of illegal violations of confidentiality (either by wiretapping or outright opening of any correspondence) is committed very frequently by government officials or private entities with or without government involvement, and usually the victim might never know if this happened, how and why. > > The question then is (assuming the same legal framework is valid in the USA): is the government entitled to open any correspondence on suspicion without a legal and explicit procedure? In other words: does government spying violate those legal principles? > > I think the conclusion is that, if the government can break this confidentiality without due process of law (and spying is breaking this without due process of law), basic rights are being automatically put at grave risk. However, even if it cannot do that, we will all be at risk of illegal violations by government or other agents. Encrypting digital information seems to be the last resort a citizen has to ensure as much as possible his/her constitutional right of confidentiality > > I am not a lawyer, so my reasoning might be full of flaws, but this is what I think. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > > On 09/27/2010 02:40 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >> And, from the Privacy list: NYTimes: U.S. wants access to *all* encrypted >> Internet communications http://bit.ly/b7iSFC (New York Times) >> >> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Sivasubramanian Mwrote: >> >>> In other parts of the world, it is not exactly torture and a prison term, >>> but activists, NGOs and journalists can't possibly be euphoric that their >>> communications are private and free of surveillance. China makes news, china >>> is loud in its methods, but elsewhere around the world the same is possibly >>> happening in a lesser degree in a more subtle, undetected form. Can it be >>> argued that other Governments anywhere do not use available technology to >>> monitor activists NGOs and journalists? >>> >>> >>> Sivasubramanian M >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Rebecca MacKinnon< >>> rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> From the South China Morning Post Sunday Magazine. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.1d923702d0f3d4b2b5326b10cba0a0a0/?vgnextoid=8b50812fd593b210VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=mag&issue=20100926&ss=Post+Magazine&s=Magazines >>>> Chain of commands Mainland authorities are detaining individuals for >>>> perceived crimes committed online. But how do they access such incriminating >>>> information? Paul Mooney >>>> Updated on Sep 26, 2010When Norzin Wangmo used her computer and mobile >>>> phone two years ago to communicate with friends about protests in Tibet, she >>>> had no idea it would result in her torture and a five-year prison sentence. >>>> >>>> Detained soon after sending the messages, the 30-year-old Tibetan >>>> government worker and writer was accused by officials of using the >>>> technology to inform the outside world about civil unrest in Tibet. >>>> >>>> After months in detention, during which her friends said she was tortured, >>>> the five-year prison term was handed down. Few other details about Norzin >>>> Wangmo, who leaves behind a young son, are known. >>>> >>>> No one is sure how Chinese intelligence obtained the details of her >>>> communications. But the story is a frightening example of the dark side of >>>> internet espionage on the mainland, where people perceived to be a threat to >>>> the state are targeted, including ordinary Chinese citizens, scholars, >>>> human-rights workers, journalists, diplomats and businesspeople. >>>> >>>> Many security experts who study China believe the government is being fed >>>> information by a loose and shadowy network that includes the hacker >>>> community, organised crime and other parts of government, including security >>>> agencies and the People's Liberation Army (PLA). >>>> >>>> "The sheer amount of energy and resources the Chinese government has >>>> thrown at this is enormous," says Lhadon Tethong, director of the >>>> Canada-based Tibet Action Institute, which helps Tibetans fight for rights, >>>> primarily through the safe exchange of information, using sophisticated >>>> technology. >>>> >>>> Many victims of internet espionage are quick to point a finger at the >>>> central government. >>>> >>>> "Who else would attack us?" asks Chine Chan, a researcher for Amnesty >>>> International Hong Kong. "It doesn't make sense unless it's the government." >>>> >>>> Security experts, however, are careful to explain that no smoking gun has >>>> yet been found linking the hacking and the use of malware - malicious >>>> software designed to secretly access a computer system - to Beijing. >>>> >>>> Greg Walton, an independent cyber security researcher based in Britain, >>>> believes the attacks are the work of groups of players. He points to >>>> Chongqing, where there is a concentration of internet espionage control and >>>> command centres, as an example. >>>> >>>> "Chongqing is interesting in that it's like a nexus of organised crime, >>>> the party, a big computer-hacking scene and all sorts of PLA installations," >>>> he says. "It's a combination of many forces that do these attacks. It's not >>>> a secret that the data is ending up with the state. Any other explanation is >>>> improbable." >>>> >>>> Experts say the spying is highly organised and professional, with some >>>> hackers working in shifts, even making note of when targets are having lunch >>>> or taking breaks. >>>> >>>> It is also likely that many hackers are working independently and some >>>> targets are being compromised by more than one malware group, says Nart >>>> Villeneuve, a researcher at the Information Warfare Monitor (IWM), whose >>>> members include the Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, the >>>> University of Toronto and the SecDev Group, a security consultancy based in >>>> Canada. >>>> >>>> Walton says patriotic hackers are probably selling information to the >>>> government, providing it with "another layer of deniability". >>>> >>>> Since last year, IWM has published two reports on cyber-espionage >>>> networks: "Tracking GhostNet: Investigating a Cyber Espionage Network" and >>>> "Shadows in the Cloud: An investigation into cyber espionage 2.0." >>>> >>>> GhostNet is the name investigators have given to a network of more than >>>> 1,200 compromised computers in 103 countries, including foreign affairs >>>> ministries, embassies, international organisations, news organisations and a >>>> computer in the headquarters of Nato. The network's command and control >>>> centre appears to be on Hainan Island, home of the Lingshui signals >>>> intelligence facility and the Third Department of the PLA. >>>> >>>> In September and October 2008, IWM investigated alleged cyber espionage on >>>> the computer systems in various offices related to the work of the Tibet >>>> government in exile and other Tibetan groups. These included the Office of >>>> His Holiness the Dalai Lama, in Dharamsala, India, organisations in the >>>> United States, Britain, France, Belgium and Switzerland, and the office of >>>> Drewla, an NGO which runs an online outreach project that uses young >>>> Chinese-speaking Tibetans to talk with people in the mainland about the >>>> situation in Tibet. >>>> >>>> The GhostNet report said some 70 per cent of the control servers behind >>>> the attacks on Tibetan organisations were located on IP addresses assigned >>>> to the mainland. >>>> >>>> During an investigation at the Dalai Lama's private office, Walton >>>> observed as documents were being pilfered from the computer network, >>>> including a file containing thousands of e-mail addresses and another >>>> detailing the negotiating position of the spiritual leader's envoy. >>>> >>>> During the investigation into the so-called Shadow Network, investigators >>>> were able to obtain data taken by the attackers, including some 1,500 >>>> letters sent from the Dalai Lama's office between January and November last >>>> year. While the report said many of the letters did not contain sensitive >>>> information, it added that they allowed the attackers to collect information >>>> on anyone contacting the exiled spiritual leader's office. >>>> >>>> The team traced the attacks to hackers apparently in Chengdu, which is >>>> also the location of one of the PLA's technical reconnaissance bureaus >>>> charged with signals intelligence collection. Researchers said one hacker, >>>> who used the cyber name "lost33", had attended the University of Electronic >>>> Science and Technology of China, which publishes manuals on hacking and >>>> offers courses on network attack and defence security. >>>> >>>> The authors said an anomaly was detected when analysing traffic from the >>>> offices of the Tibet government in exile: computers in Dharamsala were >>>> checking in with a command and control server situated in Chongqing. Despite >>>> Chongqing Communist Party chief Bo Xilai's high-profile anti-corruption >>>> campaign, the city still has a high concentration of gangs said to have ties >>>> to the government and which have extended their traditional criminal >>>> activities to include cyber crime. >>>> >>>> While Walton admits no direct link to the central government has been >>>> detected, he does not seem to have any doubts about who is behind the >>>> attacks. >>>> >>>> "Some people shy away from saying it's the state," he says, "but there's a >>>> growing body of evidence. My own feeling is that sooner or later someone >>>> will be able to prove it." >>>> >>>> The "Shadows in the Cloud" report, which Walton contributed to, points to >>>> the existence of a vibrant hacker community in the mainland "that has been >>>> tied to targeted attacks in the past and has been linked, through informal >>>> channels, to elements of the Chinese state, although the nature and extent >>>> of the connections remains unclear". >>>> >>>> The authors allude to a "privateering" model in which the government >>>> authorises citizens to carry out attacks against "enemies of the state". >>>> However, the report referred to research by Scott Henderson, author ofThe >>>> Dark Visitor: Inside the World of Chinese Hackers. Henderson wrote that >>>> there was disagreement about the exact relationship between hackers and the >>>> state, running from "authorise" to "tacit consent" to "tolerate". >>>> >>>> The most plausible explanation, the report said, and the one supported by >>>> the evidence, is that the Shadow Network is based in the mainland and run by >>>> one or more people with close ties to the country's criminal underworld. >>>> >>>> The report concluded: "As a result, information that is independently >>>> obtained by the Chinese hacker community is likely to find its way to >>>> elements within the Chinese state." >>>> >>>> Lhadon Tethong says security experts she's spoken to consider the cyber >>>> war "a lost game" but that she takes a different approach - trying to remain >>>> one step ahead of the mainland authorities. >>>> >>>> "We're looking at new technologies that haven't come out yet and how they >>>> can be used in Tibet," she says. "The Chinese government can control your >>>> BlackBerry or laptop, but let's look beyond that, at iPads and Android >>>> technology [a mobile-phone operating system developed by Google]. You cannot >>>> stop it. The force is just too strong. >>>> >>>> "We worked with young and innovative technical experts and geeks from the >>>> beginning," she says. "The optimistic part is that the advances in >>>> communications technology are happening so quick that the Chinese >>>> bureaucracy can't keep up. Saying you can't do this or that because they're >>>> too good is just not true." >>>> >>>> She cites the microblogging service Twitter, which the authorities managed >>>> to block. Before that, Tibetan activists had found it a useful tool for >>>> getting their message across both within and outside the mainland. >>>> >>>> "You can block one site and another will pop up, and it won't take long >>>> before people find it," she says. "You can try to control it but there's no >>>> way to stop it and I think they know that." >>>> >>>> Chan agrees. "The trend can't go back. It's important to learn how to get >>>> around [the controls]. If civil society grows faster than the government >>>> controls, then you win." >>>> >>>> Meanwhile, the attacks are increasing in number and in sophistication. >>>> >>>> On March 18, people on the mailing list of Human Rights in China (HRIC) >>>> received an e-mail that appeared to be from director Sharon Hom. The subject >>>> line - "Microsoft, Stool Pigeon for the Cops and FBI" - convinced many >>>> recipients to take a look at the enclosed attachment. Within seconds the >>>> e-mail was flying around cyberspace, with thousands receiving it and passing >>>> it on to others. >>>> >>>> But the e-mail was not from Hom. It was a "spear phishing" e-mail that >>>> lured recipients to visit a compromised website in Taiwan. Those who clicked >>>> on the link unknowingly loaded malware that allowed the attackers to take >>>> control of their computers from a server in Jiangsu province. >>>> >>>> In a report on the HRIC attack, Villeneuve wrote that the malware spread >>>> via the e-mail was traced to a command and control centre in Jiangsu. He >>>> said the nature of the compromised entities and the data stolen by the >>>> attackers indicated correlations with the mainland's strategic interests. >>>> But he concluded that "we were unable to determine any direct connection >>>> between these attackers and elements of the Chinese state". >>>> >>>> Earlier this year, a foreign journalist was conducting a text conversation >>>> on Skype with Tsering Woeser, a Beijing-based Tibetan poet and commentator, >>>> when the journalist received an article over the internet service. When the >>>> suspicious reporter called Tsering Woeser to ask about the file, she was not >>>> even home. Someone had hijacked her account and started conversations with >>>> 30 of her Skype friends, several of them journalists. They even imitated the >>>> way the poet spoke. Some were tricked into downloading malware. This was the >>>> second hijacking of her Skype account in two years. >>>> >>>> Most cyber attacks rely on a tactic known as "social engineering", >>>> manipulating people to get them to provide computer access through trickery, >>>> rather than technical hacking. >>>> >>>> "At the root it's not technology," Walton says. "The deeper the >>>> penetration, the more intelligence they can feed into a social engineering >>>> attack. If I look at your computer, I can draft e-mails that you will trust >>>> more and more." >>>> >>>> Robbie Barnett, director of the Modern Tibet Studies programme at Columbia >>>> University, in the United States, says the attackers are getting >>>> increasingly sophisticated in their use of social engineering. They use the >>>> names of people you know, refer to an incident over the past 48 hours, often >>>> with a provocative subject, and may even have the actual sender's real >>>> e-mail address. He says no one can be 100 per cent safe, no matter what >>>> precautions are taken. >>>> >>>> "Eventually, they hit a bull's eye," Barnett says, "They send you a letter >>>> from a Tibetan who's just written to you and could easily be sending >>>> something to you. Even if you've been careful for years, you could fall for >>>> it." >>>> >>>> Typically the target receives an e-mail appearing to be from an >>>> acquaintance. Often it mentions some sensational detail that lures the >>>> victim into opening a file or visiting a website that opens a backdoor, >>>> where malware can be planted. >>>> >>>> Control is often maintained through the use of the Chinese Gh0st RAT >>>> (remote access tool). These trojans enable nearly unrestricted access to the >>>> infected system. The attacker can then carry out surveillance of the >>>> attacked computer, pilfer files and e-mails and send data to other >>>> computers, and use the infected computer as a platform to launch future >>>> attacks against computers around the world. >>>> >>>> "It's all part of a trend that I've been watching for a decade," says >>>> Walton, "pushing surveillance of the population from the network to the >>>> desktop. >>>> >>>> "Everything you can do, they can do - it's like they're sitting in front >>>> of your computer. They can turn on the webcam, the microphone and access >>>> documents. Someone is staring back at you through your webcam. It's >>>> Orwellian." >>>> >>>> While much of the activity seems focused on gathering intelligence and >>>> disruption of operations, in some cases the attacks are more dangerous. In >>>> July, the website of Chinese Human Rights Defenders was shut down several >>>> times by direct denial of service (DDOS) attacks. In April, the Foreign >>>> Correspondents' Club of China was forced to take its website offline >>>> temporarily after being repeatedly hit by DDOS attacks. >>>> >>>> In January, Google announced it had found "a highly sophisticated and >>>> targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that >>>> resulted in the theft of intellectual property". The attack was said to have >>>> targeted the Google e-mail accounts of Chinese human-rights activists. >>>> >>>> Journalists have also become a target. In April, Andrew Jacobs, Beijing >>>> correspondent for The New York Times, wrote an article detailing how his >>>> computer had been hacked and e-mails redirected to an unknown address. >>>> Jacobs said scores of foreign reporters in the mainland had experienced >>>> similar intrusions. >>>> >>>> Last September, several foreign news bureaus in Beijing began receiving >>>> e-mails from "Pam", who said she was an economics editor. The e-mails, which >>>> were in well-written English and included a list of genuine contact names, >>>> detailed a proposed reporting trip. However, when the attached PDF was >>>> opened it unleashed malware. >>>> >>>> Walton and Villeneuve, who studied the virus, said in a report that the >>>> file appeared to be a legitimate document that had been stolen from a >>>> compromised computer, which was then modified to include malware and serve >>>> as a lure. While they said the malware could not be traced back to the >>>> central government, the recipients were Chinese news assistants, whose >>>> e-mail addresses were not widely known to the public, but were to the >>>> Ministry of Foreign Affairs. >>>> >>>> Richard Baum, moderator of Chinapol, an online community of more than 900 >>>> China watchers, including journalists, lawyers and analysts, says the group >>>> has suffered "a certain amount of leakage" of membership lists and e-mail >>>> traffic. Members have also received phishing e-mails. Recently, an e-mail >>>> was sent to some members purporting to be the new member e-mail list, which >>>> had a malware attachment. >>>> >>>> Walton says data was being sent back to a computer in Chongqing within 30 >>>> seconds of the malware being accepted. >>>> >>>> In the HRIC incident, a member of Chinapol sent the e-mail to all its >>>> members, some of whom in turn passed it on to their acquaintances. >>>> >>>> What's troubling is anti-virus software used by the general public is not >>>> always effective in catching these viruses. In the case of the HRIC attack, >>>> there was very low anti-virus cover, with only eight out of 42 anti-virus >>>> products detecting the file as malware, the investigation found. In the case >>>> of the news assistants who downloaded malware, only three of 41 anti-virus >>>> products used by VirusTotal, a service that analyses suspicious files and >>>> URLs, detected the malicious code embedded in the PDF file. >>>> >>>> Fake e-mails also create confusion. A human-rights activist in Hong Kong >>>> tells of an e-mail sent out in her name revealing certain information only >>>> known to people she worked closely with. >>>> >>>> "This is their way of saying, `We know who you are and what you're doing', >>>> to make you feel scared," she says. "Even if people know the e-mail is not >>>> from me, the damage is already done. The next time they'll ask if it's >>>> really from me." >>>> >>>> HRIC's Hom says: "This is seriously raising security issues for us. It >>>> makes every NGO, every journalist, every contact ask if they get an e-mail >>>> from me if it's real. As a small NGO we don't have the resources, technical >>>> expertise and capacity to guard ourselves against such high-level attacks. >>>> It makes it very difficult for us to do our work. >>>> >>>> "How can any organisation, company or government function if communication >>>> with other persons or organisations runs the risk of a malware attack that >>>> undermines the trust in the organisation? The biggest impact on us is we >>>> have to be extremely careful not to compromise the security of the people >>>> we're dealing with." >>>> >>>> One example of this, from the GhostNet report, is that of a young Tibetan >>>> woman who was returning to her village after having worked for two years in >>>> India. She was stopped at the Nepal-Tibet border by Chinese intelligence >>>> officers. The woman was taken to a detention centre, where she was >>>> interrogated about her connection with Drewla. >>>> >>>> She insisted she had gone to India just to study, denying any political >>>> involvement, but her claims were waved away. The officers then pulled out a >>>> dossier on her activities in India, including transcripts of her online >>>> chats about Tibet. >>>> >>>> She was held for two months and then allowed to return to her village. >>>> >>>> As a result, many activists are now reluctant to send information over the >>>> internet and even delete e-mails from people they don't know or that look >>>> suspicious. The result is less information is getting through to the people >>>> who need it. >>>> >>>> "It's caused a lot of problems for me," says Tsering Woeser, who is often >>>> under police surveillance. "First, because of my situation, I can only >>>> contact my friends through Skype and e-mail, and now some Tibetan friends >>>> are afraid to contact me. I'm getting much less information than before. >>>> It's a huge interference." >>>> >>>> Tsering Woeser says her internet activities are constantly probed. In a >>>> recent incident, she received an e-card from dissident writer Yu Jie, which >>>> turned out to be a phishing spear. She says that at least once a month a >>>> person pretending to be a Tibetan attempts to make contact with her online. >>>> >>>> "But what I worry about most is that the people who are in contact with me >>>> may get into trouble and I won't even know about it," she says. >>>> >>>> Barnett also depends on sources to provide him with news from tightly >>>> controlled Tibetan areas. He says he, too, is now receiving far less >>>> information than in previous years. "The deterrent effect on people sending >>>> information is very effective," he says. "This is having a massive effect on >>>> the limitation of outsiders finding out what's happening in China. A lot of >>>> it works by fear, intimidation and self-censorship. People are worried about >>>> interception." >>>> >>>> Barnett says this climate of surveillance suggests to anyone considering >>>> sending information "that they should think twice". >>>> >>>> The culture of security in China, he says, means the government only has >>>> to go after a few people to have a deterrent effect. >>>> >>>> "You only have to pick up three people for passing on information and that >>>> will deter hundreds of thousands of others," he says. "The system may now be >>>> more powerful than us." >>>> >>>> Walton says there has been a clear increase in the number of incidents >>>> this year, although he cautions that this may be due to the fact people are >>>> more on the lookout for these things. >>>> >>>> "There's more awareness and people are suspicious of links and e-mails," >>>> he says. "In terms of forward trends, I see a continuous escalation of these >>>> attacks. People are being compromised every day and I'm getting examples on >>>> a daily basis." >>>> >>>> Experts say that if Beijing is not responsible for the attacks, it has a >>>> responsibility to shut down hackers working within its borders. >>>> >>>> "I have never and still don't make the claim that it was the government," >>>> Hom says. "But if China insists on internet sovereignty and sovereignty over >>>> its territory, it has to take responsibility for these kinds of cyber >>>> attacks. It has to show the international community that it has taken steps >>>> to investigate, track down and end these attacks." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Rebecca MacKinnon >>>> Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation >>>> Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org >>>> Cell: +1-617-939-3493 >>>> E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com >>>> Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com >>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Rebecca MacKinnon Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org Cell: +1-617-939-3493 E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Mon Sep 27 10:36:26 2010 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:36:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [liberationtech] NYT report on Obama admin's wiretap plans In-Reply-To: <372E43A9-E7EA-48CA-A79E-3D6875DCF903@gmail.com> References: <169DB96A-322B-4DBA-A865-5DCA59A83734@gmail.com> <4CA074A1.7060106@cafonso.ca> <372E43A9-E7EA-48CA-A79E-3D6875DCF903@gmail.com> Message-ID: Rebecca, I think the proposed legislation is a terrible development which completely contradicts the goals stated by secretary Clinton in her internet freedom speech. This quite reminds me of the "clipper chip" encryption policy battles of the 90's when the Clinton administration asked for similar powers. The policy was defeated by a coalition of human rights ngos, privacy experts and technical experts who showed that the proposed back doors would in fact make us less, not more secure. The reasoning being put forward now is the same. The danger remains the same - build in surveillance and back doors - and they will be used against us. China already has this capability, and is using it to strategically steal info from ngos, businesses and govts. In addition, there isn't mention of enhanced independent oversight and appeal process - which is a must for any such invasive measure. It is my view that the proposal will : - not only weaken internet freedom domestically, but also serve as a precedent for repressive govts to enact far broader surveillance powers. - have the unintended consequence of making the use of secure tools for communication illegal at home and abroad. - make it harder, is not impossible for US based group to call out govts that conduct internet surveillance. In summary, the US must try to serve as an example of freedom and liberty online. If we let proposed policies like this prevail, the great potential of the internet for freedom will be lost forever. Regards Robert --- Robert Guerra Project Director, Internet Freedom Freedom House Tel +1 202 569 1800 Twitter : netfreedom On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Rebecca MacKinnon < rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com> wrote: > > I recommend Glenn Greenwald's comparison of the Obama admin's latest moves > with the UAE/Blackberry situation, which the administration criticized: > http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/27/privacy/index.html > > If the bill described by the NYT were to be passed into law, am I correct > in my understanding that tools like Tor would be illegal and/or impossible > to develop and operate in the U.S.? > > Best, > Rebecca > > On Sep 27, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > There is a legal foundation in the Brazilian constitution which establishes > that "confidentialy of correspondence is inviolable". The latest major > rewriting of our Constitution is from 1989, when email was a little more > than an experiment, but for all legal purposes email is regarded as > "correspondence" just as any common letter. If one encrypts email therefore > it becomes irrelevant to the Constitution, since its contents are > inviolable. > > But, of course, a Court can legitimately require breach of confidentiality > by a designated law official if there is legal ground to prove that this > breaching is required as proof against a possible crime, felony etc during a > due process of law. However, as much as no one ca be forced to read his or > her own letter even if the style is impossible to read by anyone else, so > he/she cannot be forced to decode or facilitate the decoding the encrypted > content of any message or document. This is also based in established law: > no one can be forced to generate evidence against him/herself in any > circumstance, or, in other words, we all have a right to remain silent. > > In practice, a lot of illegal violations of confidentiality (either by > wiretapping or outright opening of any correspondence) is committed very > frequently by government officials or private entities with or without > government involvement, and usually the victim might never know if this > happened, how and why. > > The question then is (assuming the same legal framework is valid in the > USA): is the government entitled to open any correspondence on suspicion > without a legal and explicit procedure? In other words: does government > spying violate those legal principles? > > I think the conclusion is that, if the government can break this > confidentiality without due process of law (and spying is breaking this > without due process of law), basic rights are being automatically put at > grave risk. However, even if it cannot do that, we will all be at risk of > illegal violations by government or other agents. Encrypting digital > information seems to be the last resort a citizen has to ensure as much as > possible his/her constitutional right of confidentiality > > I am not a lawyer, so my reasoning might be full of flaws, but this is what > I think. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > > On 09/27/2010 02:40 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > And, from the Privacy list: NYTimes: U.S. wants access to *all* encrypted > > Internet communications http://bit.ly/b7iSFC (New York Times) > > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Sivasubramanian M >wrote: > > > In other parts of the world, it is not exactly torture and a prison term, > > but activists, NGOs and journalists can't possibly be euphoric that their > > communications are private and free of surveillance. China makes news, > china > > is loud in its methods, but elsewhere around the world the same is possibly > > happening in a lesser degree in a more subtle, undetected form. Can it be > > argued that other Governments anywhere do not use available technology to > > monitor activists NGOs and journalists? > > > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Rebecca MacKinnon< > > rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com> wrote: > > > From the South China Morning Post Sunday Magazine. > > > > > http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.1d923702d0f3d4b2b5326b10cba0a0a0/?vgnextoid=8b50812fd593b210VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=mag&issue=20100926&ss=Post+Magazine&s=Magazines > > Chain of commands Mainland authorities are detaining individuals for > > perceived crimes committed online. But how do they access such > incriminating > > information? Paul Mooney > > Updated on Sep 26, 2010When Norzin Wangmo used her computer and mobile > > phone two years ago to communicate with friends about protests in Tibet, > she > > had no idea it would result in her torture and a five-year prison sentence. > > > Detained soon after sending the messages, the 30-year-old Tibetan > > government worker and writer was accused by officials of using the > > technology to inform the outside world about civil unrest in Tibet. > > > After months in detention, during which her friends said she was tortured, > > the five-year prison term was handed down. Few other details about Norzin > > Wangmo, who leaves behind a young son, are known. > > > No one is sure how Chinese intelligence obtained the details of her > > communications. But the story is a frightening example of the dark side of > > internet espionage on the mainland, where people perceived to be a threat > to > > the state are targeted, including ordinary Chinese citizens, scholars, > > human-rights workers, journalists, diplomats and businesspeople. > > > Many security experts who study China believe the government is being fed > > information by a loose and shadowy network that includes the hacker > > community, organised crime and other parts of government, including > security > > agencies and the People's Liberation Army (PLA). > > > "The sheer amount of energy and resources the Chinese government has > > thrown at this is enormous," says Lhadon Tethong, director of the > > Canada-based Tibet Action Institute, which helps Tibetans fight for rights, > > primarily through the safe exchange of information, using sophisticated > > technology. > > > Many victims of internet espionage are quick to point a finger at the > > central government. > > > "Who else would attack us?" asks Chine Chan, a researcher for Amnesty > > International Hong Kong. "It doesn't make sense unless it's the > government." > > > Security experts, however, are careful to explain that no smoking gun has > > yet been found linking the hacking and the use of malware - malicious > > software designed to secretly access a computer system - to Beijing. > > > Greg Walton, an independent cyber security researcher based in Britain, > > believes the attacks are the work of groups of players. He points to > > Chongqing, where there is a concentration of internet espionage control and > > command centres, as an example. > > > "Chongqing is interesting in that it's like a nexus of organised crime, > > the party, a big computer-hacking scene and all sorts of PLA > installations," > > he says. "It's a combination of many forces that do these attacks. It's not > > a secret that the data is ending up with the state. Any other explanation > is > > improbable." > > > Experts say the spying is highly organised and professional, with some > > hackers working in shifts, even making note of when targets are having > lunch > > or taking breaks. > > > It is also likely that many hackers are working independently and some > > targets are being compromised by more than one malware group, says Nart > > Villeneuve, a researcher at the Information Warfare Monitor (IWM), whose > > members include the Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, the > > University of Toronto and the SecDev Group, a security consultancy based in > > Canada. > > > Walton says patriotic hackers are probably selling information to the > > government, providing it with "another layer of deniability". > > > Since last year, IWM has published two reports on cyber-espionage > > networks: "Tracking GhostNet: Investigating a Cyber Espionage Network" and > > "Shadows in the Cloud: An investigation into cyber espionage 2.0." > > > GhostNet is the name investigators have given to a network of more than > > 1,200 compromised computers in 103 countries, including foreign affairs > > ministries, embassies, international organisations, news organisations and > a > > computer in the headquarters of Nato. The network's command and control > > centre appears to be on Hainan Island, home of the Lingshui signals > > intelligence facility and the Third Department of the PLA. > > > In September and October 2008, IWM investigated alleged cyber espionage on > > the computer systems in various offices related to the work of the Tibet > > government in exile and other Tibetan groups. These included the Office of > > His Holiness the Dalai Lama, in Dharamsala, India, organisations in the > > United States, Britain, France, Belgium and Switzerland, and the office of > > Drewla, an NGO which runs an online outreach project that uses young > > Chinese-speaking Tibetans to talk with people in the mainland about the > > situation in Tibet. > > > The GhostNet report said some 70 per cent of the control servers behind > > the attacks on Tibetan organisations were located on IP addresses assigned > > to the mainland. > > > During an investigation at the Dalai Lama's private office, Walton > > observed as documents were being pilfered from the computer network, > > including a file containing thousands of e-mail addresses and another > > detailing the negotiating position of the spiritual leader's envoy. > > > During the investigation into the so-called Shadow Network, investigators > > were able to obtain data taken by the attackers, including some 1,500 > > letters sent from the Dalai Lama's office between January and November last > > year. While the report said many of the letters did not contain sensitive > > information, it added that they allowed the attackers to collect > information > > on anyone contacting the exiled spiritual leader's office. > > > The team traced the attacks to hackers apparently in Chengdu, which is > > also the location of one of the PLA's technical reconnaissance bureaus > > charged with signals intelligence collection. Researchers said one hacker, > > who used the cyber name "lost33", had attended the University of Electronic > > Science and Technology of China, which publishes manuals on hacking and > > offers courses on network attack and defence security. > > > The authors said an anomaly was detected when analysing traffic from the > > offices of the Tibet government in exile: computers in Dharamsala were > > checking in with a command and control server situated in Chongqing. > Despite > > Chongqing Communist Party chief Bo Xilai's high-profile anti-corruption > > campaign, the city still has a high concentration of gangs said to have > ties > > to the government and which have extended their traditional criminal > > activities to include cyber crime. > > > While Walton admits no direct link to the central government has been > > detected, he does not seem to have any doubts about who is behind the > > attacks. > > > "Some people shy away from saying it's the state," he says, "but there's a > > growing body of evidence. My own feeling is that sooner or later someone > > will be able to prove it." > > > The "Shadows in the Cloud" report, which Walton contributed to, points to > > the existence of a vibrant hacker community in the mainland "that has been > > tied to targeted attacks in the past and has been linked, through informal > > channels, to elements of the Chinese state, although the nature and extent > > of the connections remains unclear". > > > The authors allude to a "privateering" model in which the government > > authorises citizens to carry out attacks against "enemies of the state". > > However, the report referred to research by Scott Henderson, author ofThe > > Dark Visitor: Inside the World of Chinese Hackers. Henderson wrote that > > there was disagreement about the exact relationship between hackers and the > > state, running from "authorise" to "tacit consent" to "tolerate". > > > The most plausible explanation, the report said, and the one supported by > > the evidence, is that the Shadow Network is based in the mainland and run > by > > one or more people with close ties to the country's criminal underworld. > > > The report concluded: "As a result, information that is independently > > obtained by the Chinese hacker community is likely to find its way to > > elements within the Chinese state." > > > Lhadon Tethong says security experts she's spoken to consider the cyber > > war "a lost game" but that she takes a different approach - trying to > remain > > one step ahead of the mainland authorities. > > > "We're looking at new technologies that haven't come out yet and how they > > can be used in Tibet," she says. "The Chinese government can control your > > BlackBerry or laptop, but let's look beyond that, at iPads and Android > > technology [a mobile-phone operating system developed by Google]. You > cannot > > stop it. The force is just too strong. > > > "We worked with young and innovative technical experts and geeks from the > > beginning," she says. "The optimistic part is that the advances in > > communications technology are happening so quick that the Chinese > > bureaucracy can't keep up. Saying you can't do this or that because they're > > too good is just not true." > > > She cites the microblogging service Twitter, which the authorities managed > > to block. Before that, Tibetan activists had found it a useful tool for > > getting their message across both within and outside the mainland. > > > "You can block one site and another will pop up, and it won't take long > > before people find it," she says. "You can try to control it but there's no > > way to stop it and I think they know that." > > > Chan agrees. "The trend can't go back. It's important to learn how to get > > around [the controls]. If civil society grows faster than the government > > controls, then you win." > > > Meanwhile, the attacks are increasing in number and in sophistication. > > > On March 18, people on the mailing list of Human Rights in China (HRIC) > > received an e-mail that appeared to be from director Sharon Hom. The > subject > > line - "Microsoft, Stool Pigeon for the Cops and FBI" - convinced many > > recipients to take a look at the enclosed attachment. Within seconds the > > e-mail was flying around cyberspace, with thousands receiving it and > passing > > it on to others. > > > But the e-mail was not from Hom. It was a "spear phishing" e-mail that > > lured recipients to visit a compromised website in Taiwan. Those who > clicked > > on the link unknowingly loaded malware that allowed the attackers to take > > control of their computers from a server in Jiangsu province. > > > In a report on the HRIC attack, Villeneuve wrote that the malware spread > > via the e-mail was traced to a command and control centre in Jiangsu. He > > said the nature of the compromised entities and the data stolen by the > > attackers indicated correlations with the mainland's strategic interests. > > But he concluded that "we were unable to determine any direct connection > > between these attackers and elements of the Chinese state". > > > Earlier this year, a foreign journalist was conducting a text conversation > > on Skype with Tsering Woeser, a Beijing-based Tibetan poet and commentator, > > when the journalist received an article over the internet service. When the > > suspicious reporter called Tsering Woeser to ask about the file, she was > not > > even home. Someone had hijacked her account and started conversations with > > 30 of her Skype friends, several of them journalists. They even imitated > the > > way the poet spoke. Some were tricked into downloading malware. This was > the > > second hijacking of her Skype account in two years. > > > Most cyber attacks rely on a tactic known as "social engineering", > > manipulating people to get them to provide computer access through > trickery, > > rather than technical hacking. > > > "At the root it's not technology," Walton says. "The deeper the > > penetration, the more intelligence they can feed into a social engineering > > attack. If I look at your computer, I can draft e-mails that you will trust > > more and more." > > > Robbie Barnett, director of the Modern Tibet Studies programme at Columbia > > University, in the United States, says the attackers are getting > > increasingly sophisticated in their use of social engineering. They use the > > names of people you know, refer to an incident over the past 48 hours, > often > > with a provocative subject, and may even have the actual sender's real > > e-mail address. He says no one can be 100 per cent safe, no matter what > > precautions are taken. > > > "Eventually, they hit a bull's eye," Barnett says, "They send you a letter > > from a Tibetan who's just written to you and could easily be sending > > something to you. Even if you've been careful for years, you could fall for > > it." > > > Typically the target receives an e-mail appearing to be from an > > acquaintance. Often it mentions some sensational detail that lures the > > victim into opening a file or visiting a website that opens a backdoor, > > where malware can be planted. > > > Control is often maintained through the use of the Chinese Gh0st RAT > > (remote access tool). These trojans enable nearly unrestricted access to > the > > infected system. The attacker can then carry out surveillance of the > > attacked computer, pilfer files and e-mails and send data to other > > computers, and use the infected computer as a platform to launch future > > attacks against computers around the world. > > > "It's all part of a trend that I've been watching for a decade," says > > Walton, "pushing surveillance of the population from the network to the > > desktop. > > > "Everything you can do, they can do - it's like they're sitting in front > > of your computer. They can turn on the webcam, the microphone and access > > documents. Someone is staring back at you through your webcam. It's > > Orwellian." > > > While much of the activity seems focused on gathering intelligence and > > disruption of operations, in some cases the attacks are more dangerous. In > > July, the website of Chinese Human Rights Defenders was shut down several > > times by direct denial of service (DDOS) attacks. In April, the Foreign > > Correspondents' Club of China was forced to take its website offline > > temporarily after being repeatedly hit by DDOS attacks. > > > In January, Google announced it had found "a highly sophisticated and > > targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that > > resulted in the theft of intellectual property". The attack was said to > have > > targeted the Google e-mail accounts of Chinese human-rights activists. > > > Journalists have also become a target. In April, Andrew Jacobs, Beijing > > correspondent for The New York Times, wrote an article detailing how his > > computer had been hacked and e-mails redirected to an unknown address. > > Jacobs said scores of foreign reporters in the mainland had experienced > > similar intrusions. > > > Last September, several foreign news bureaus in Beijing began receiving > > e-mails from "Pam", who said she was an economics editor. The e-mails, > which > > were in well-written English and included a list of genuine contact names, > > detailed a proposed reporting trip. However, when the attached PDF was > > opened it unleashed malware. > > > Walton and Villeneuve, who studied the virus, said in a report that the > > file appeared to be a legitimate document that had been stolen from a > > compromised computer, which was then modified to include malware and serve > > as a lure. While they said the malware could not be traced back to the > > central government, the recipients were Chinese news assistants, whose > > e-mail addresses were not widely known to the public, but were to the > > Ministry of Foreign Affairs. > > > Richard Baum, moderator of Chinapol, an online community of more than 900 > > China watchers, including journalists, lawyers and analysts, says the group > > has suffered "a certain amount of leakage" of membership lists and e-mail > > traffic. Members have also received phishing e-mails. Recently, an e-mail > > was sent to some members purporting to be the new member e-mail list, which > > had a malware attachment. > > > Walton says data was being sent back to a computer in Chongqing within 30 > > seconds of the malware being accepted. > > > In the HRIC incident, a member of Chinapol sent the e-mail to all its > > members, some of whom in turn passed it on to their acquaintances. > > > What's troubling is anti-virus software used by the general public is not > > always effective in catching these viruses. In the case of the HRIC attack, > > there was very low anti-virus cover, with only eight out of 42 anti-virus > > products detecting the file as malware, the investigation found. In the > case > > of the news assistants who downloaded malware, only three of 41 anti-virus > > products used by VirusTotal, a service that analyses suspicious files and > > URLs, detected the malicious code embedded in the PDF file. > > > Fake e-mails also create confusion. A human-rights activist in Hong Kong > > tells of an e-mail sent out in her name revealing certain information only > > known to people she worked closely with. > > > "This is their way of saying, `We know who you are and what you're doing', > > to make you feel scared," she says. "Even if people know the e-mail is not > > from me, the damage is already done. The next time they'll ask if it's > > really from me." > > > HRIC's Hom says: "This is seriously raising security issues for us. It > > makes every NGO, every journalist, every contact ask if they get an e-mail > > from me if it's real. As a small NGO we don't have the resources, technical > > expertise and capacity to guard ourselves against such high-level attacks. > > It makes it very difficult for us to do our work. > > > "How can any organisation, company or government function if communication > > with other persons or organisations runs the risk of a malware attack that > > undermines the trust in the organisation? The biggest impact on us is we > > have to be extremely careful not to compromise the security of the people > > we're dealing with." > > > One example of this, from the GhostNet report, is that of a young Tibetan > > woman who was returning to her village after having worked for two years in > > India. She was stopped at the Nepal-Tibet border by Chinese intelligence > > officers. The woman was taken to a detention centre, where she was > > interrogated about her connection with Drewla. > > > She insisted she had gone to India just to study, denying any political > > involvement, but her claims were waved away. The officers then pulled out a > > dossier on her activities in India, including transcripts of her online > > chats about Tibet. > > > She was held for two months and then allowed to return to her village. > > > As a result, many activists are now reluctant to send information over the > > internet and even delete e-mails from people they don't know or that look > > suspicious. The result is less information is getting through to the people > > who need it. > > > "It's caused a lot of problems for me," says Tsering Woeser, who is often > > under police surveillance. "First, because of my situation, I can only > > contact my friends through Skype and e-mail, and now some Tibetan friends > > are afraid to contact me. I'm getting much less information than before. > > It's a huge interference." > > > Tsering Woeser says her internet activities are constantly probed. In a > > recent incident, she received an e-card from dissident writer Yu Jie, which > > turned out to be a phishing spear. She says that at least once a month a > > person pretending to be a Tibetan attempts to make contact with her online. > > > "But what I worry about most is that the people who are in contact with me > > may get into trouble and I won't even know about it," she says. > > > Barnett also depends on sources to provide him with news from tightly > > controlled Tibetan areas. He says he, too, is now receiving far less > > information than in previous years. "The deterrent effect on people sending > > information is very effective," he says. "This is having a massive effect > on > > the limitation of outsiders finding out what's happening in China. A lot of > > it works by fear, intimidation and self-censorship. People are worried > about > > interception." > > > Barnett says this climate of surveillance suggests to anyone considering > > sending information "that they should think twice". > > > The culture of security in China, he says, means the government only has > > to go after a few people to have a deterrent effect. > > > "You only have to pick up three people for passing on information and that > > will deter hundreds of thousands of others," he says. "The system may now > be > > more powerful than us." > > > Walton says there has been a clear increase in the number of incidents > > this year, although he cautions that this may be due to the fact people are > > more on the lookout for these things. > > > "There's more awareness and people are suspicious of links and e-mails," > > he says. "In terms of forward trends, I see a continuous escalation of > these > > attacks. People are being compromised every day and I'm getting examples on > > a daily basis." > > > Experts say that if Beijing is not responsible for the attacks, it has a > > responsibility to shut down hackers working within its borders. > > > "I have never and still don't make the claim that it was the government," > > Hom says. "But if China insists on internet sovereignty and sovereignty > over > > its territory, it has to take responsibility for these kinds of cyber > > attacks. It has to show the international community that it has taken steps > > to investigate, track down and end these attacks." > > > > > Rebecca MacKinnon > > Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation > > Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org > > Cell: +1-617-939-3493 > > E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com > > Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > > > Rebecca MacKinnon > Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation > Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org > Cell: +1-617-939-3493 > E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com > Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com > Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack > > > > _______________________________________________ > liberationtech mailing list > liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu > > Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: > > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 27 12:46:32 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:46:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 In-Reply-To: <4CA044BC.7070508@gmail.com> References: <642D367C-C7D6-4B5C-AE74-157498AFCA32@gmail.com> ,<4CA044BC.7070508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956AD0D5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> My suggestion is to just ignore the distinction and not artificially force it in one direction or another - ie all remote or all local. In our Wireless Grid Innovation Testbed We just have 'meetings' which are sometimes clarified to be 'meetings/webconferences.' That is you can come to Syracuse if you want though we don't especially care if you do or don't. It takes a little while for participants behavior to evolve to enable clusters of people and individuals to participate on a more or less equal footing to folks physically attending, but if that is the new normal then folks adjust. And admittedly the supporting tech has its own glitches and shortcomings, whether proprietary, or not. Doing this at global scale is also a challenge for IGF. 1 easy step I suggest is the 'remote' participation group consider rebranding themselves the 'distributed participation' working group or whatever, and see how far individual workshops can succeed in this manner of interaction at IGF 2011. If some want all speakers remote fine, though on average some here and some there might be more typical and productive for the folks who bothered to fly halfway around world. Inevitably some folks somewhere will be up in middle of night, or choose to listen and comment asynchronously on the recording of the webconference/meeting, but Izumi is right much more can be done to make IGF a new model for collaborative interaction, in which the 'meeting' or in our case Forum is where you are, wherever that is. Lee ________________________________________ From: Ginger Paque [gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 3:16 AM To: Izumi AIZU Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 I am glad to see appreciation for the remote volunteer team: they worked very hard. Tx. Izumi... that is not a strange proposal at all. Indeed, the Remote Participation Workshop No. 126 discussion included a proposal that an IGF be designed that could take place entirely through remote participation: both presenters and attendees! This may not yet be a practical application, but it does indicate that remote participation -- or, perhaps 'local participation' (considering that it is the physical meeting which is in a 'remote' venue), is evolving to enhance the impact of 'remote' attendees. Semantics and definitions underlie verbal discussions, and RP is not exempt from word play :) This year we emphasized 'engage remotely, connect locally', and see that this is indeed a mobile and global concept. Who is really local, who is 'remote'? Is there a better way to describe 'remote' participation? The RP workshop discussion was excellent and moved from applications and techniques to a more mature level of policy and issues to concretely address access and inclusion. We will post a transcript online for continued exchange in comments around the transcript itself. I will post a link to the discussion once it is uploaded. Again, congratulations to everyone, local and 'remote'... IG is behind many important concepts and innovations, not only multistakeholder (ism) meetings, but remote participation and well. 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. On 9/26/2010 11:05 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: I also like to echo the congratulations and thanks, and also one (strange) proposal for the next round. How about, making things "upside-down"? I mean at physical meeting of the IGF, how about making the main speakers and participants all remote? So far, the remote participation and participants are regarded as supplementary, but not given a front-seat status. But think of online chat or conference call where no one is physically present and taking floors as main participants. Everyone is remote. At IGF, we can have the physical participants there, but making most speakers and interactions online, webcast, chat etc. I think it's worth a try so that those who cannot come to the venue still feel they have the main player, with deeper sense of participation and ownership. izumi 2010/9/27 Rebecca MacKinnon : As a happy remote participant, I too would like to add my congratulations to all who made remote participation work so well this year. Best, Rebecca Rebecca MacKinnon Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org Cell: +1-617-939-3493 E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack On Sep 25, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Janna Anderson wrote: Great work by Ginger and MANY people who led and assisted in so many ways. It really is beginning to feel to those who must participate remotely as if you are really there, on the scene while still so far away. There’s more work to be done on this, but thanks to the people who facilitated it in so many ways this year. I was in North Carolina the entire time, but I feel that between conversations on this list and on Twitter, the IGF Secretariat’s provision of timely information, the contributions of organizations like Cisco, the persistence of many individuals including those who were the catalysts for hubs and remote moderators that it really was a GLOBAL IGF. Congratulations to all! Janna On 9/25/10 7:56 AM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: Remote participation at the IGF Vilnius 2010 raised the bar for remote participation in international public policy meetings. Not in sheer volume, although 600+ individuals is a good number, but in actual inclusion and participation, with 33 registered remote hubs and dozens of remote panelists, this IGF was indeed a global success. While there was successful remote observation with excellent webcast, audiocast and captioning, there was also the possibility of real remote participation for those who wanted to comment, ask questions and respond, with the same privileges and priorities as those who attended in person. The next step will be to ensure that remote participants take advantage of this possibility, and that remote moderators learn to transmit the interest and personal power of the comments so that their impact is tangibly felt in the meeting room. An interesting (unforeseen) development was chat exchanges between remote hubs on the WebEx platform, as remote hubs gave feedback to presentations or comments by other remote hubs. Pre-IGF preparations were better than ever, with strategy, planning, training and information from the first 2010 OC in Geneva. I would like to thank the volunteer remote moderators from the panels, DiploFoundation fellows and the ISOC ambassadors program for their engagement and precious time and energy; the Lithuania host for their support and their tech teams; the IGF Secretariat for their support and follow-up, DiploFoundation for constant backup, and my fellow RPWG members for their year-round worry, work and dynamic involvement. Thanks to all of the hub organizers for their work to include people from all over the world in this meeting too. The RPWG will publish a report later this year. We look forward to your comments and suggestions. Warm regards, Ginger -- 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 27 23:05:56 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:05:56 +1200 Subject: [governance] Request for Information Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Fiji is developing its policy on protection of public infrastructure with a focus on cables (fiber on the ground). Do any of your jurisdictions have problems with cable theft etc? What policies or legal framework are present in your country? I would be interested to learn from your country's experiences. What is the situation in India, Botswana, Zimbabwe, China, US, Korea, South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria and Europe? Do you have an independent institution that oversees this? Is it a public entity or private entity or both? I would be grateful if you could also direct me to anything that you think may be relevant. 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." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 28 00:19:32 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:19:32 +0800 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: <58A2B2FA-57A3-40EF-BB57-F7C1EB494561@psg.com> References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> <51318F66-3D2E-4727-A70B-E2E558F699D2@ciroap.org> <4C9F6E4A.5070601@gmx.net> <601B1814-FA18-4E33-9948-5485795AE6C2@ciroap.org> <4CA06F45.7000009@cafonso.ca> <58A2B2FA-57A3-40EF-BB57-F7C1EB494561@psg.com> Message-ID: On 27/09/2010, at 7:51 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > One think I disagree with Jeremy on: > >> Thanks everyone, we now have enough support to put this amendment to a vote, which I'll do in conjunction with the coordinator ballot as soon as I have the last remaining candidate's statement and have compiled the latest voter list. No need for more responses until then. > > Well actually now that it is up for a vote, it is reasonable that we discuss it to the extent that people will feel informed when voting for or against it. You have you 10 champions for the idea. But approving an amendment takes a fair number of voters. I.e. 2/3 of those who are currently deemed as members based on the previous vote. Getting 2/3 is never a shoe in. > > So people asking questions about why and whether seems a good idea to me. > > Of course I am sure Jeremy did not really mean that we should stop talking about, it just read that way to me. so i pounced. Good call Avri, I just meant that there was no need for more proposers saying "me too", which could be considered as list noise. But discussion and debate are always welcome. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 gurstein at gmail.com Tue Sep 28 01:24:40 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:24:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] New Blogpost: Investment 58-Poverty 14: The UN's Broadband Commission for Digital Development vs. the MDGs Message-ID: <6C62C78B9E634AC3B27C6342E01BD1BE@userPC> 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 From kichango at gmail.com Tue Sep 28 08:07:57 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 08:07:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a In-Reply-To: References: <2807A71E-5B26-4056-920C-B5CDAD4F35D1@ciroap.org> <9B4FD20C-BF26-422A-82BE-31A3EAD441AE@psg.com> <8EE0489B-EB26-4D15-9543-D0F755572C79@ciroap.org> <51318F66-3D2E-4727-A70B-E2E558F699D2@ciroap.org> <4C9F6E4A.5070601@gmx.net> <601B1814-FA18-4E33-9948-5485795AE6C2@ciroap.org> <4CA06F45.7000009@cafonso.ca> <58A2B2FA-57A3-40EF-BB57-F7C1EB494561@psg.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 27/09/2010, at 7:51 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > One think I disagree with Jeremy on: > > > Thanks everyone, we now have enough support to put this amendment to a > vote, which I'll do in conjunction with the coordinator ballot as soon as I > have the last remaining candidate's statement and have compiled the latest > voter list. No need for more responses until then. > > > Well actually now that it is up for a vote, it is reasonable that we > discuss it to the extent that people will feel informed when voting for or > against it. You have you 10 champions for the idea. But approving an > amendment takes a fair number of voters. I.e. 2/3 of those who are > currently deemed as members based on the previous vote. Getting 2/3 is > never a shoe in. > > > So people asking questions about why and whether seems a good idea to me. > > > Of course I am sure Jeremy did not really mean that we should stop talking > about, it just read that way to me. so i pounced. > > > Good call Avri, I just meant that there was no need for more proposers > saying "me too", which could be considered as list noise. But discussion > and debate are always welcome. > > Then I'd ask folks to consider and address Parminder's reservations and the extent to which we could rather retain his suggestion that we work on the same set of volunteers for setting up different nomcoms, when time is hort. The "whenever possible" seems to imply that the 2 month rule is the exception. Too open... I like openness but for me that means we don't make rules unless they're necessary; and if they are and we make them, then they better be sharp with regard to their purpose and to the extent possible! Mawaki > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 ocl at gih.com Tue Sep 28 09:16:24 2010 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:16:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 In-Reply-To: <4C9DE370.9040108@gmail.com> References: <4C9DE370.9040108@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4CA1EAA8.20007@gih.com> Dear Ginger, thank you for your message regarding remote participation at the IGF Vilnius 2010. It was indeed a great success, and thanks to all of the hard work by all concerned. In his recent reply to your message, Izumi Aizu made a particularly interesting suggestion: >How about, making things "upside-down"? >I mean at physical meeting of the IGF, how about making the >main speakers and participants all remote? So far, the remote >participation and participants are regarded as supplementary, >but not given a front-seat status. But think of online chat or >conference call where no one is physically present and taking >floors as main participants. Everyone is remote. At IGF, we can >have the physical participants there, but making most speakers >and interactions online, webcast, chat etc. Having been the remote moderator of many sessions this year, I'm afraid that this is a little premature yet. I have encountered more than a fair share of technical problems, which I am planning on writing a report on, as a part of my ISOC Ambassador project. In short, I believe that the technology is not mature enough yet. The difficulty does not stem from a single system; it is the inter-connection of the variety of technologies used, which hinders a smooth flow of information. Conducting work in a timely manner using 100% teleconferencing and a virtual room has been demonstrated on many an occasion at ICANN. I recently found out in two large working teams, the "Special Trademark Issues team", and the "Community Working Group on New gTLD Rec-6", that, provided with an excellent and experienced leadership (Dave Maher for the first group, and Chuck Gomez for the second), it is possible to work on some of the most controversial subject and reach consensus, even without a face to face meeting. However, the moment you introduce a segment of the conference participants to attend physically, serious technical problems hinder progress. The first problem is that of the reliability of the Internet connection. In my interactions, I noticed remote participants and hubs timing out due to network problems somewhere along the line. Text chatting is usually most resilient to this, because it does not require much bandwidth, but in order to fully engage remote participants in discussions, you need to give them the ability to speak, rather than only type. And this is where the main problem lies: the interfacing of many different systems (a public address system in the physical location, a Webex session, a telephone bridge etc.), you end up with problems like feedback loops, distorsion, unaudible speech and seriously distorted speech which breaks the concentration of participants and hinders their ability to devote 100% of their mind to elaborate a constructive argument. Public address systems are designed to automatically suppress instantaneous feedback, either by digital or analogue analysis of the speech. Webex performs the same thing too. Ditto for telephone bridges. But when you interface all three, unquantified delays outside the tolerance of these suppression systems start appearing, and you end up with loops - sometimes several seconds long. The equipment used to broadcast the sessions automatically introduces delays. In some sessions, for example, we ended up with infinite echoes, sometimes 6 seconds long - and a dialogue with a remote participant became confusing - bordering on the impossible. We tried so many different ways to remove this, and it appeared to be impossible with the current set-up. A lot of work and testing will therefore need to be done, if we ultimately wish to make things "upside down". The fact that we're already engaged in testing this, is very good news indeed, but I don't think that we're there yet. Finally, let me also mention that the IETF's "VMEET" group is also looking at this problematic. Like many other organisations relying on a multi-stakeholder input, the subject of remote public participation has been a concern for some time. Thomas Narten has drafted an interesting Internet Draft document (sadly now expired, so I encourage Thomas to follow-up on this), which can still be found on: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-ietf-remote-participation In some way, the IGF's remote participation this year appears to have surpassed this stage already, and has been the first wide scale, global experiment of such kind. I really hope that this will encourage everyone to continue testing new technologies. I hope it will encourage remote conferencing software manufacturers, and not only Webex, to capitalise on this experience and improve their products. You and your team have reached "proof of concept". Let's hope, for the sake of the millions of people out there who would like to participate, and not only for the lucky few of us who are funded to attend physically, that in some years to come, technology will allow us to participate fully from the four corners of our planet. Last but not least, I hope that there will be cross-linking of knowledge and experience in this area, whether ISOC, IETF, IGF or ICANN... or any other group for that matter. We, the privileged few, have a duty to work overtime to promote this digital inclusion. Without it, we're just a déjà-vu pot-pourri of "The usual suspects". Kindest regards, Olivier Le 25/09/2010 12:56, Ginger Paque a écrit : > Remote participation at the IGF Vilnius 2010 raised the bar for remote > participation in international public policy meetings. Not in sheer > volume, although 600+ individuals is a good number, but in actual > inclusion and participation, with 33 registered remote hubs and dozens > of remote panelists, this IGF was indeed a global success. While there > was successful remote observation with excellent webcast, audiocast > and captioning, there was also the possibility of real remote > /participation/ for those who wanted to comment, ask questions and > respond, with the same privileges and priorities as those who attended > in person. > > The next step will be to ensure that remote participants take > advantage of this possibility, and that remote moderators learn to > transmit the interest and personal power of the comments so that their > impact is tangibly felt in the meeting room. > > An interesting (unforeseen) development was chat exchanges between > remote hubs on the WebEx platform, as remote hubs gave feedback to > presentations or comments by other remote hubs. > > Pre-IGF preparations were better than ever, with strategy, planning, > training and information from the first 2010 OC in Geneva. > > I would like to thank the volunteer remote moderators from the > panels, DiploFoundation fellows and the ISOC ambassadors program for > their engagement and precious time and energy; the Lithuania host for > their support and their tech teams; the IGF Secretariat for their > support and follow-up, DiploFoundation for constant backup, and my > fellow RPWG members for their year-round worry, work and dynamic > involvement. > > Thanks to all of the hub organizers for their work to include people > from all over the world in this meeting too. > > The RPWG will publish a report later this year. We look forward to > your comments and suggestions. > > Warm regards, > Ginger > -- -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Sep 28 15:41:44 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:41:44 -0700 Subject: [governance] New Blogpost: Investment 58-Poverty 14: TheUN'sBroadband Commission for Digital Development vs. the MDGs Message-ID: <5A2A819E72DB43C687B399C83416FE0A@userPC> I'm engaged in a rather heated discussion with one of the prime authors of the BBCDD. I won't presume to forward his comments but here below are my most recent ones... I think there may be a broader interest within this group. M -----Original Message----- From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 9:24 AM Subject: RE: New Blogpost: Investment 58-Poverty 14: TheUN'sBroadband Commission for Digital Development vs. the MDGs One of the (many) advantages of living on the "best" coast is that you can initiate a "discussion" before you go to sleep and wake up to find that most of the heavy lifting has already been done for you ;-) In fact contra xxx , this isn't just ITU and UNESCO blather... I see it rather in the context of WSIS and an attempt to refight the development of the Plan of Action (including myself as a minor contributor) and the outcome of the Task Force on Financing Mechanisms where civil society fought very long and very hard to ensure the opportunity for a plurality of approaches to financing/ownership and a focus on uses rather than infrastructure. The result was a somewhat uneasy compromise but a compromise nevertheless in which the corporates (and their implicit ITU collaborators) had to take a rather more inclusive and "use" oriented approach than they would have wished. Having seen at least one major country of the South focus its ICT (and thus Broadband) planning within the context of the WSIS Declaration I have difficulty in seeing this Commission Report as quite as benign as you are suggesting especially given its obvious repudiation of the operating principles of WSIS which were inclusiveness, transparency and multistakeholderism. I don't think one needs to be a conspiracy buff to see this current document a clear attempt to do an end run around WSIS in the service of a specific approach to BB financing and deployment while wrapping itself in the convenient cloak of the MDGs. The Report of the Task Force on Financing Mechanisms includes the following rather more tempered and inclusive approach (i.e. the role of CSO's and community based organizations) in its summary of recommendations: 4. There is evidence to suggest that the broad-based deployment of ICT also depends on a supportive development policy environment for ICTD particularly the establishment of national e-strategies and the integration of ICT into poverty reduction and/or other national development strategies and the PRSP process. Over 90 developing countries have developed or are in the process of completing national ICTD strategies. These strategies, typically designed on a multi-stakeholder basis, have been important in establishing national ownership and in outlining a set of key priority areas for intervention. Many of these have also linked to priorities outlined in the national poverty reduction or other development strategies, the success of which critically depends upon effective information management tools and applications, communication, and coordination across all public agencies and programs. The process and content of the poverty reduction and other development strategies are also key for donors who align their aid and partnership strategies to the priorities outlined therein. [3,4 ] 5. Policy and regulatory incentives and more open access policies are also needed if private investment, CSO and community networks are also found to be effective in expanding ICT access to high cost (predominantly rural) and low income populations to address the "bottom of the pyramid" populations. Addressing policy barriers, removing restrictions on competitive entry by ICT companies and local community network operators, and permitting the use of cost effective technologies (e.g. VOIP, and on unlicensed spectrum), and other innovative practices have been found to be helpful in moving the network frontier to address the needs of currently under-served populations. Continued cooperation between various development partners and stakeholders can also help in addressing the problems of providing rural access using new technological applications including wireless broadband devices, offering incentives to Internet cafes, phone shops and community communications networks. [5, 5a) FWIW my own position is not against private (or public) sector financing or deregulation/de-taxing in support of BB deployment. I think different approaches will make sense in different contexts. But what needs to be recognized is that the ultimate determinant of the approach undertaken should be whether it contributes or not to the achievement of broad based access and use of the infrastructure. From my experience and following yyy here, any approach that doesn't include/allow for/enable/facilitate a significant component of end-user community involvement and "ownership" is almost certain to fail from a developmental perspective. And my major problem with the Commission's report is that there doesn't seem to be a very strong reality component as to what is required whether in terms of policy or supporting and enabling resources to translate BB access into BB "effective use". Further and again following yyy , the Commission's report seems to take the position that it is entering into a greenfield environment. In fact of course, a large number of folks both on the ground and working in support of those developments have been active for years in creating conditions where ICTs could be effectively used. Even a casual review of the literature via Skype would have revealed a startling amount of experience and knowledge without even having to find the time or energy to contact the folks involved directly. As a colleague who has worked on the ground in Mozambique for the last 20 years wrote on my blog "This is indeed very sad, sounds as if the Commission didn't even do a proper literature review to get a line on current debates! Even our little Digital Inclusion study might have helped!" Sincerely, Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Sep 29 00:32:05 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:32:05 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC Coordinator election and charter votes now open Message-ID: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> You should just have received a personal email inviting you to cast your vote for the next co-coordinator of the IGC. After you confirm your eligibility and cast your vote, you will also become eligible to vote on the recently-discussed charter amendment. If you did not receive your personal invitation email, please first check your junk email folder, and if you still do not have it, let me know. The draft form of the coordinator ballot and charter poll has been approved by Ginger also, but I will take primary responsibility for any disputes that people may wish to raise about the process adopted. The 2009 appeals team (Jeanette Hofmann, Adam Peake, Carlos Alfonso, Ken Lohento and Fouad Bajwa), who have not yet been replaced for 2010, are (I hope) also available to hear any disagreements. Following the informal procedure adopted in previous years (the charter is, surprisingly, silent), the election ballot and charter poll will be open for 10 days from now, which ends on 9 September 2010, "rounded up" until midnight that night. The last subscriber who is eligible to affirm IGC membership is Alan Greenberg, who subscribed on 23 July 2010. The first subscriber who missed out on that opportunity is Giorgio Simeoli who subscribed on 10 August. One subscriber, emisa+ig at gmail.com has an email address that is not technically capable of receiving a personalised invitation -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 Sep 29 00:40:50 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:40:50 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC Coordinator election and charter votes now open In-Reply-To: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 29/09/2010, at 12:32 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Following the informal procedure adopted in previous years (the charter is, surprisingly, silent), the election ballot and charter poll will be open for 10 days from now, which ends on 9 September 2010, "rounded up" until midnight that night. I mean, of course, 9 October. Sorry. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- 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 Sep 29 01:59:39 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:59:39 +0800 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process Message-ID: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> Please don't answer YES to "Have you already voted in this election?" if, in fact, you haven't done so. Answering YES will prevent you from being allowed to vote. A couple of people have already been caught by this (after verification of their error I deleted their original responses so they could try again). Another issue is that although you are presented with a link to the current statistics of the poll in progress after you complete your answers, there is no convenient way to get back to those statistics after you close your browser window. So to address this, here is a permanent link to the statistics: http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/statistics_user.php?action=statistics&sid=74518 -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 Wed Sep 29 02:30:21 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:30:21 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Consultation meeting Nov 22-23, Geneva announced Message-ID: 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 From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Sep 29 03:08:52 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:08:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> Hi Jeremy, I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator should be made publicly available before the completion of the election. It may affect the way people vote. jeanette On 29.09.2010 06:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Please don't answer YES to "Have you already voted in this election?" > if, in fact, you haven't done so. Answering YES will prevent you from > being allowed to vote. A couple of people have already been caught by > this (after verification of their error I deleted their original > responses so they could try again). > > Another issue is that although you are presented with a link to the > current statistics of the poll in progress after you complete your > answers, there is no convenient way to get back to those statistics > after you close your browser window. So to address this, here is a > permanent link to the statistics: > > http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/statistics_user.php?action=statistics&sid=74518 > > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement > in 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect > consumer rights around the world. > _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_ > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Sep 29 03:10:15 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:10:15 +0800 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <7C039271-F6B1-472E-B084-C6C4EE57DFE8@ciroap.org> On 29/09/2010, at 3:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator should be made publicly available before the completion of the election. It may affect the way people vote. What do others think? I can shut down the statistics for now if this view is commonly held. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 gpaque at gmail.com Wed Sep 29 03:17:29 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 02:47:29 -0430 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <7C039271-F6B1-472E-B084-C6C4EE57DFE8@ciroap.org> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> <7C039271-F6B1-472E-B084-C6C4EE57DFE8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4CA2E809.5010806@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 david.souter at runbox.com Wed Sep 29 03:18:14 2010 From: david.souter at runbox.com (David Souter) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:18:14 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <7C039271-F6B1-472E-B084-C6C4EE57DFE8@ciroap.org> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> <7C039271-F6B1-472E-B084-C6C4EE57DFE8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I agree with Jeanette. DS ----- Start Original Message ----- Sent: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:10:15 +0800 From: Jeremy Malcolm To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Jeanette Hofmann Subject: Re: [governance] Tips about the election process > On 29/09/2010, at 3:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator should be made publicly available before the completion of the election. It may affect the way people vote. > > What do others think? I can shut down the statistics for now if this view is commonly held. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > CI is 50 > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. > http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > ----- 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 sdkaaa at gmail.com Wed Sep 29 03:20:17 2010 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 07:20:17 +0000 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <4CA2E809.5010806@paque.net> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> <7C039271-F6B1-472E-B084-C6C4EE57DFE8@ciroap.org><4CA2E809.5010806@paque.net> Message-ID: <1417120430-1285744816-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-64630187-@bda240.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> +1 Sent via my BlackBerry® smartphone -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 02:47:29 To: ; Jeremy Malcolm Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Ginger Paque Cc: Jeanette Hofmann Subject: Re: [governance] Tips about the election process I agree with Jeanette... On 9/29/2010 2:40 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 29/09/2010, at 3:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator should be made publicly available before the completion of the election. It may affect the way people vote. What do others think? I can shut down the statistics for now if this view is commonly held. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Sep 29 03:22:56 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:22:56 +0300 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <7C039271-F6B1-472E-B084-C6C4EE57DFE8@ciroap.org> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> <7C039271-F6B1-472E-B084-C6C4EE57DFE8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 29/09/2010, at 3:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator should be made publicly available before the completion of the election. It may affect the way people vote. > > What do others think?  I can shut down the statistics for now if this view is commonly held. While I agree with Jeanette, I think that horse has already left the stables. -- 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 jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk Wed Sep 29 03:35:05 2010 From: jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk (Jonathan Cave) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 07:35:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <7C039271-F6B1-472E-B084-C6C4EE57DFE8@ciroap.org> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu><7C039271-F6B1-472E-B084-C6C4EE57DFE8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <1587001722-1285745705-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1594360116-@bda2016.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> I agree with Jeanette - even if partial stats have "left the stable" they are a weak signal - a few horses, not the herd. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Malcolm Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:10:15 To: ; Jeanette Hofmann Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] Tips about the election process On 29/09/2010, at 3:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator should be made publicly available before the completion of the election. It may affect the way people vote. What do others think? I can shut down the statistics for now if this view is commonly held. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Sep 29 03:32:34 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:32:34 +1000 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yep, I reckon turn them off as well > From: McTim > Reply-To: , McTim > Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:22:56 +0300 > To: > Subject: Re: [governance] Tips about the election process > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 29/09/2010, at 3:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >>> I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator should be >>> made publicly available before the completion of the election. It may affect >>> the way people vote. >> >> What do others think?  I can shut down the statistics for now if this view is >> commonly held. > > While I agree with Jeanette, I think that horse has already left the stables. > > -- > 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Sep 29 03:39:59 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:39:59 +0900 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <1587001722-1285745705-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1594360116 -@bda2016.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu><7C039271-F6B1-472E-B084-C6C4EE57DFE8@ciroap.org> <1587001722-1285745705-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1594360116 -@bda2016.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> Message-ID: agree with Jeanette (and Jonathan's comment on horses :-)) Adam >I agree with Jeanette - even if partial stats >have "left the stable" they are a weak signal - >a few horses, not the herd. >Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeremy Malcolm >Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:10:15 >To: ; Jeanette Hofmann >Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Jeremy Malcolm >Subject: Re: [governance] Tips about the election process > >On 29/09/2010, at 3:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> I don't think the statistics for the election >>of the coordinator should be made publicly >>available before the completion of the >>election. It may affect the way people vote. > >What do others think? I can shut down the >statistics for now if this view is commonly held. > >-- >Jeremy Malcolm >Project Coordinator >Consumers International >Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, >TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > >CI is 50 >Consumers International marks 50 years of the >global consumer movement in 2010. >Celebrate with us as we continue to support, >promote 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 gpaque at gmail.com Wed Sep 29 03:42:47 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 03:12:47 -0430 Subject: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 In-Reply-To: <4CA1EAA8.20007@gih.com> References: <4C9DE370.9040108@gmail.com> <4CA1EAA8.20007@gih.com> Message-ID: <4CA2EDF7.2070008@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shahzad at bytesforall.net Wed Sep 29 03:46:30 2010 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:46:30 +0500 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <90D516C7-C95D-410C-9764-C1E26521330E@bytesforall.net> Agreed with Jeanette. The statistics should not be made available before completion of the process Sent from my iPhone On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator > should be made publicly available before the completion of the > election. It may affect the way people vote. > jeanette > > > > On 29.09.2010 06:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Please don't answer YES to "Have you already voted in this election?" >> if, in fact, you haven't done so. Answering YES will prevent you from >> being allowed to vote. A couple of people have already been caught by >> this (after verification of their error I deleted their original >> responses so they could try again). >> >> Another issue is that although you are presented with a link to the >> current statistics of the poll in progress after you complete your >> answers, there is no convenient way to get back to those statistics >> after you close your browser window. So to address this, here is a >> permanent link to the statistics: >> >> http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/statistics_user.php?action=statistics&sid=74518 >> > > >> >> -- >> >> *Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator* >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >> Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> *CI is 50* >> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer >> movement >> in 2010. >> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Sep 29 03:49:04 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:19:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> <7C039271-F6B1-472E-B084-C6C4EE57DFE8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Yes, Jeanette is a bit late. The results have influenced several people already, and more voters may go along with the trend. Sivasubramanian M On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:52 PM, McTim wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > On 29/09/2010, at 3:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > >> I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator should > be made publicly available before the completion of the election. It may > affect the way people vote. > > > > What do others think? I can shut down the statistics for now if this > view is commonly held. > > While I agree with Jeanette, I think that horse has already left the > stables. > > -- > 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Sep 29 03:52:08 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:52:08 +0800 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <90D516C7-C95D-410C-9764-C1E26521330E@bytesforall.net> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> <90D516C7-C95D-410C-9764-C1E26521330E@bytesforall.net> Message-ID: On 29/09/2010, at 3:46 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Agreed with Jeanette. The statistics should not be made available before completion of the process OK, disabling them now (it will take a few minutes). -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Wed Sep 29 03:55:24 2010 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:55:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100929075524.GH13256@hamsu.tarvainen.info> > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 29/09/2010, at 3:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> > >>> I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator should be > >>> made publicly available before the completion of the election. It may affect > >>> the way people vote. > >> > >> What do others think?  I can shut down the statistics for now if this view is > >> commonly held. I think they should be removed. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 29 04:16:58 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:16:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <20100929075524.GH13256@hamsu.tarvainen.info> References: <20100929075524.GH13256@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: As one of the candidates, I refrained from making any comments. I also strongly agree that the voting results should be closed until the vote itself is closed and verified. Many thanks, izumi 2010/9/29 Tapani Tarvainen : > >> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> On 29/09/2010, at 3:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> >> >>> I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator should be >> >>> made publicly available before the completion of the election. It may affect >> >>> the way people vote. >> >> >> >> What do others think?  I can shut down the statistics for now if this view is >> >> commonly held. > > I think they should be removed. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 29 07:13:19 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:43:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> Dear All This is to draw you attention to an important matter. The voting eligibility for charter amendment and for any other voting, including for electing a coordinator is very different. While for the latter, anyone who has been on the list for two months and affirms membership through declaring commitment to the charter can vote, for a charter amendment only those who have voted for the last election/ voting can vote. This special condition has been put for voting on any charter amendment to avoid capture, since charter amendment is quite a serious matter, since through any such amendment the very nature of and procedures adopted by the caucus can be changed. When I read that voting for charter amendment and for electing a new coordinator will take place at the same time, I brought the above issue to the attention of the co-coordinator in-charge of the voting/election, Jeremy, and requested that since there are different voting eligibility conditions for the two proposed voting, holding them together will cause confusion and should therefore be avoided. I preferred that charter amendment be held separately before the coordinator election, with the voter list consisting of all those who had voted for the last election, as is expressly required by the charter. Jeremy replied that he is going to overcome this problem simply by having a single process whereby the coordinator voting immediately precedes the charter amendment vote, and it will 'technically' be ensured that only those who vote for coordinator election will be able to vote for the charter amendment, which in his view would meet the special voting eligibility requirement for a charter amendment vote. I responded that though technically it may meet the requirement, which too I doubt, it does not observe the intent of the charter in spirit, since the special condition of more strict eligibility conditions for voting for charter amendment has been put there with a clear purpose of avoiding capture. It is for this reason that the charter seeks to put some clear time and space between the participation of anyone in a vote for charter amendment and her/ his affirmation of IGC membership through participation in an earlier election, when, presumably, he/ she would have no idea of a possible participation in a charter amendment vote. The present process, whereby any voting can be held immediately preceding, but as a part of the same process of, a charter amendment vote almost looks like writing a plan on how to subvert the charter requirement of more stringent voting criteria for charter amendment. Even though the present exercise may be well-intentioned, the fact that it opens up a dangerous future possibility bother me a lot. I therefore consider the present voting process as not proper, and propose a discussion on this issue. Parminder On Wednesday 29 September 2010 10:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > You should just have received a personal email inviting you to cast > your vote for the next co-coordinator of the IGC. After you confirm > your eligibility and cast your vote, you will also become eligible to > vote on the recently-discussed charter amendment. > > If you did not receive your personal invitation email, please first > check your junk email folder, and if you still do not have it, let me > know. > > The draft form of the coordinator ballot and charter poll has been > approved by Ginger also, but I will take primary responsibility for > any disputes that people may wish to raise about the process adopted. > > The 2009 appeals team (Jeanette Hofmann, Adam Peake, Carlos > Alfonso, Ken Lohento and Fouad Bajwa), who have not yet been replaced > for 2010, are (I hope) also available to hear any disagreements. > > Following the informal procedure adopted in previous years (the > charter is, surprisingly, silent), the election ballot and charter > poll will be open for 10 days from now, which ends on 9 September > 2010, "rounded up" until midnight that night. > > The last subscriber who is eligible to affirm IGC membership is Alan > Greenberg, who subscribed on 23 July 2010. The first subscriber who > missed out on that opportunity is Giorgio Simeoli who subscribed on 10 > August. One subscriber, emisa+ig at gmail.com > has an email address that is not > technically capable of receiving a personalised invitation > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement > in 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect > consumer rights around the world. > _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_ > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . > Don't print this email unless necessary. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 29 07:13:33 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:43:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4CA31F5D.3060402@itforchange.net> Dear All This is to draw your attention to an important matter. The voting eligibility for charter amendment and for any other voting, including for electing a coordinator is very different. While for the latter, anyone who has been on the list for two months and affirms membership through declaring commitment to the charter can vote, for a charter amendment only those who have voted for the last election/ voting can vote. This special condition has been put for voting on any charter amendment to avoid capture, since charter amendment is quite a serious matter, since through any such amendment the very nature of and procedures adopted by the caucus can be changed. When I read that voting for charter amendment and for electing a new coordinator will take place at the same time, I brought the above issue to the attention of the co-coordinator in-charge of the voting/election, Jeremy, and requested that since there are different voting eligibility conditions for the two proposed voting, holding them together will cause confusion and should therefore be avoided. I preferred that charter amendment be held separately before the coordinator election, with the voter list consisting of all those who had voted for the last election, as is expressly required by the charter. Jeremy replied that he is going to overcome this problem simply by having a single process whereby the coordinator voting immediately precedes the charter amendment vote, and it will 'technically' be ensured that only those who vote for coordinator election will be able to vote for the charter amendment, which in his view would meet the special voting eligibility requirement for a charter amendment vote. I responded that though technically it may meet the requirement, which too I doubt, it does not observe the intent of the charter in spirit, since the special condition of more strict eligibility conditions for voting for charter amendment has been put there with a clear purpose of avoiding capture. It is for this reason that the charter seeks to put some clear time and space between the participation of anyone in a vote for charter amendment and her/ his affirmation of IGC membership through participation in an earlier election, when, presumably, he/ she would have no idea of a possible participation in a charter amendment vote. The present process, whereby any voting can be held immediately preceding, but as a part of the same process of, a charter amendment vote almost looks like writing a plan on how to subvert the charter requirement of more stringent voting criteria for charter amendment. Even though the present exercise may be well-intentioned, the fact that it opens up a dangerous future possibility bother me a lot. I therefore consider the present voting process as not proper, and propose a discussion on this issue. Parminder On Wednesday 29 September 2010 10:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > You should just have received a personal email inviting you to cast > your vote for the next co-coordinator of the IGC. After you confirm > your eligibility and cast your vote, you will also become eligible to > vote on the recently-discussed charter amendment. > > If you did not receive your personal invitation email, please first > check your junk email folder, and if you still do not have it, let me > know. > > The draft form of the coordinator ballot and charter poll has been > approved by Ginger also, but I will take primary responsibility for > any disputes that people may wish to raise about the process adopted. > > The 2009 appeals team (Jeanette Hofmann, Adam Peake, Carlos > Alfonso, Ken Lohento and Fouad Bajwa), who have not yet been replaced > for 2010, are (I hope) also available to hear any disagreements. > > Following the informal procedure adopted in previous years (the > charter is, surprisingly, silent), the election ballot and charter > poll will be open for 10 days from now, which ends on 9 September > 2010, "rounded up" until midnight that night. > > The last subscriber who is eligible to affirm IGC membership is Alan > Greenberg, who subscribed on 23 July 2010. The first subscriber who > missed out on that opportunity is Giorgio Simeoli who subscribed on 10 > August. One subscriber, emisa+ig at gmail.com > has an email address that is not > technically capable of receiving a personalised invitation > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement > in 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 Wed Sep 29 07:24:44 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 20:24:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: <4CA31F5D.3060402@itforchange.net> References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F5D.3060402@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Perhaps it will be possible to split the voters by the qualifications Parminder mentions? That is, after the vote is complete, anyone who did not vote in the last election has their vote on the charter amendment voided. And their vote on the coordinator positions would remain. That would leave the correct voter pool, right? Jeremy could a process like this be completed automatically? Adam At 4:43 PM +0530 9/29/10, parminder wrote: >Dear All > >This is to draw your attention to an important matter. > >The voting eligibility for charter amendment and >for any other voting, including for electing a >coordinator is very different. While for the >latter, anyone who has been on the list for two >months and affirms membership through declaring >commitment to the charter can vote, for a >charter amendment only those who have voted for >the last election/ voting can vote. This special >condition has been put for voting on any charter >amendment to avoid capture, since charter >amendment is quite a serious matter, since >through any such amendment the very nature of >and procedures adopted by the caucus can be >changed. > >When I read that voting for charter amendment >and for electing a new coordinator will take >place at the same time, I brought the above >issue to the attention of the co-coordinator >in-charge of the voting/election, Jeremy, and >requested that since there are different voting >eligibility conditions for the two proposed >voting, holding them together will cause >confusion and should therefore be avoided. I >preferred that charter amendment be held >separately before the coordinator election, with >the voter list consisting of all those who had >voted for the last election, as is expressly >required by the charter. > >Jeremy replied that he is going to overcome this >problem simply by having a single process >whereby the coordinator voting immediately >precedes the charter amendment vote, and it will >'technically' be ensured that only those who >vote for coordinator election will be able to >vote for the charter amendment, which in his >view would meet the special voting eligibility >requirement for a charter amendment vote. > >I responded that though technically it may meet >the requirement, which too I doubt, it does not >observe the intent of the charter in spirit, >since the special condition of more strict >eligibility conditions for voting for charter >amendment has been put there with a clear >purpose of avoiding capture. It is for this >reason that the charter seeks to put some clear >time and space between the participation of >anyone in a vote for charter amendment and her/ >his affirmation of IGC membership through >participation in an earlier election, when, >presumably, he/ she would have no idea of a >possible participation in a charter amendment >vote. > > The present process, whereby any voting can be >held immediately preceding, but as a part of the >same process of, a charter amendment vote >almost looks like writing a plan on how to >subvert the charter requirement of more >stringent voting criteria for charter amendment. >Even though the present exercise may be >well-intentioned, the fact that it opens up a >dangerous future possibility bother me a lot. > >I therefore consider the present voting process >as not proper, and propose a discussion on this >issue. > >Parminder  > > > >On Wednesday 29 September 2010 10:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>You should just have received a personal email >>inviting you to cast your vote for the next >>co-coordinator of the IGC.  After you confirm >>your eligibility and cast your vote, you will >>also become eligible to vote on the >>recently-discussed charter amendment. >> >>If you did not receive your personal invitation >>email, please first check your junk email >>folder, and if you still do not have it, let me >>know. >> >> >>The draft form of the coordinator ballot and >>charter poll has been approved by Ginger also, >>but I will take primary responsibility for any >>disputes that people may wish to raise about >>the process adopted. >> >>The 2009 appeals team (Jeanette Hofmann, Adam >>Peake, Carlos Alfonso, Ken Lohento and Fouad >>Bajwa), who have not yet been replaced for >>2010, are (I hope) also available to hear any >>disagreements. >> >>Following the informal procedure adopted in >>previous years (the charter is, surprisingly, >>silent), the election ballot and charter poll >>will be open for 10 days from now, which ends >>on 9 September 2010, "rounded up" until >>midnight that night. >> >>The last subscriber who is eligible to affirm >>IGC membership is Alan Greenberg, who >>subscribed on 23 July 2010.  The first >>subscriber who missed out on that opportunity >>is Giorgio Simeoli who subscribed on 10 August. >> One >>subscriber, emisa+ig at gmail.com >>has an email address that is not technically >>capable of receiving a personalised invitation >> >>-- >> >>Jeremy Malcolm >>Project Coordinator >>Consumers International >>Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >>Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, >>TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >>CI is 50 >>Consumers International marks 50 years of the >>global consumer movement in 2010. >>Celebrate with us as we continue to support, >>promote and protect consumer rights around the >>world.  >>http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 >> >>Read >>our email >>confidentiality notice. Don't print this email >>unless necessary. >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Sep 29 07:24:57 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 07:24:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> Message-ID: The problem with the interpretation to "avoid capture" of only allowing charter votes from those who voted in the last election is that it greatly facilitates a different kind of capture: One may monitor those who voted in the last election and, when that mix is favorable, ram through the charter amendment based on this subset of the total electorate. And then another amendment could be passed, based on the same consideration of not having voted in the last election. Perhaps this could be called "super-capture." I've written before that a proper interpretation, at least in my view, of the Charter would result in a fair and democratic voting method, but it hasn't been interpreted consistently that way in the past. The odd thing is that I am valuable enough to at least be asked about the Charter, and yet after missing one election I have never been qualified or registered to vote at any time in the year or two I've been on the list. Perhaps I am now, but it's hard for me to know because some of the procedures are, to me, democratically counter-intuitive. Paul Lehto, J.D. On 9/29/10, parminder wrote: > Dear All > > This is to draw you attention to an important matter. > > The voting eligibility for charter amendment and for any other voting, > including for electing a coordinator is very different. While for the > latter, anyone who has been on the list for two months and affirms > membership through declaring commitment to the charter can vote, for a > charter amendment only those who have voted for the last election/ > voting can vote. This special condition has been put for voting on any > charter amendment to avoid capture, since charter amendment is quite a > serious matter, since through any such amendment the very nature of and > procedures adopted by the caucus can be changed. > > When I read that voting for charter amendment and for electing a new > coordinator will take place at the same time, I brought the above issue > to the attention of the co-coordinator in-charge of the voting/election, > Jeremy, and requested that since there are different voting eligibility > conditions for the two proposed voting, holding them together will cause > confusion and should therefore be avoided. I preferred that charter > amendment be held separately before the coordinator election, with the > voter list consisting of all those who had voted for the last election, > as is expressly required by the charter. > > Jeremy replied that he is going to overcome this problem simply by > having a single process whereby the coordinator voting immediately > precedes the charter amendment vote, and it will 'technically' be > ensured that only those who vote for coordinator election will be able > to vote for the charter amendment, which in his view would meet the > special voting eligibility requirement for a charter amendment vote. > > I responded that though technically it may meet the requirement, which > too I doubt, it does not observe the intent of the charter in spirit, > since the special condition of more strict eligibility conditions for > voting for charter amendment has been put there with a clear purpose of > avoiding capture. It is for this reason that the charter seeks to put > some clear time and space between the participation of anyone in a vote > for charter amendment and her/ his affirmation of IGC membership through > participation in an earlier election, when, presumably, he/ she would > have no idea of a possible participation in a charter amendment vote. > > The present process, whereby any voting can be held immediately > preceding, but as a part of the same process of, a charter amendment > vote almost looks like writing a plan on how to subvert the charter > requirement of more stringent voting criteria for charter amendment. > Even though the present exercise may be well-intentioned, the fact that > it opens up a dangerous future possibility bother me a lot. > > I therefore consider the present voting process as not proper, and > propose a discussion on this issue. > > Parminder > > > > On Wednesday 29 September 2010 10:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> You should just have received a personal email inviting you to cast >> your vote for the next co-coordinator of the IGC. After you confirm >> your eligibility and cast your vote, you will also become eligible to >> vote on the recently-discussed charter amendment. >> >> If you did not receive your personal invitation email, please first >> check your junk email folder, and if you still do not have it, let me >> know. >> >> The draft form of the coordinator ballot and charter poll has been >> approved by Ginger also, but I will take primary responsibility for >> any disputes that people may wish to raise about the process adopted. >> >> The 2009 appeals team (Jeanette Hofmann, Adam Peake, Carlos >> Alfonso, Ken Lohento and Fouad Bajwa), who have not yet been replaced >> for 2010, are (I hope) also available to hear any disagreements. >> >> Following the informal procedure adopted in previous years (the >> charter is, surprisingly, silent), the election ballot and charter >> poll will be open for 10 days from now, which ends on 9 September >> 2010, "rounded up" until midnight that night. >> >> The last subscriber who is eligible to affirm IGC membership is Alan >> Greenberg, who subscribed on 23 July 2010. The first subscriber who >> missed out on that opportunity is Giorgio Simeoli who subscribed on 10 >> August. One subscriber, emisa+ig at gmail.com >> has an email address that is not >> technically capable of receiving a personalised invitation >> >> -- >> >> *Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator* >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> *CI is 50* >> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement >> in 2010. >> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect >> consumer rights around the world. >> _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_ >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . >> >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Sep 29 07:30:07 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 07:30:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F5D.3060402@itforchange.net> Message-ID: An Internet governance group hurts itself in advocating greater democracy if it doesn't itself practice democracy. That would include not disfranchising anybody for any reason, unless it is truly a matter of concern only to a subgroup (such as a utility rate district for one town only). Right now, the anti-"capture" philosophy results in denying the vote to those who are in no way part of any recently arrived "capture" group, thus it is unjust as against those people. It's one thing to punish or prevent capture, it's another thing to punish or prevent innocents in order to protect against capture. Paul Lehto, J.D. On 9/29/10, Adam Peake wrote: > Perhaps it will be possible to split the voters > by the qualifications Parminder mentions? > > That is, after the vote is complete, anyone who > did not vote in the last election has their vote > on the charter amendment voided. And their vote > on the coordinator positions would remain. That > would leave the correct voter pool, right? > > Jeremy could a process like this be completed automatically? > > Adam > > > > At 4:43 PM +0530 9/29/10, parminder wrote: >>Dear All >> >>This is to draw your attention to an important matter. >> >>The voting eligibility for charter amendment and >>for any other voting, including for electing a >>coordinator is very different. While for the >>latter, anyone who has been on the list for two >>months and affirms membership through declaring >>commitment to the charter can vote, for a >>charter amendment only those who have voted for >>the last election/ voting can vote. This special >>condition has been put for voting on any charter >>amendment to avoid capture, since charter >>amendment is quite a serious matter, since >>through any such amendment the very nature of >>and procedures adopted by the caucus can be >>changed. >> >>When I read that voting for charter amendment >>and for electing a new coordinator will take >>place at the same time, I brought the above >>issue to the attention of the co-coordinator >>in-charge of the voting/election, Jeremy, and >>requested that since there are different voting >>eligibility conditions for the two proposed >>voting, holding them together will cause >>confusion and should therefore be avoided. I >>preferred that charter amendment be held >>separately before the coordinator election, with >>the voter list consisting of all those who had >>voted for the last election, as is expressly >>required by the charter. >> >>Jeremy replied that he is going to overcome this >>problem simply by having a single process >>whereby the coordinator voting immediately >>precedes the charter amendment vote, and it will >>'technically' be ensured that only those who >>vote for coordinator election will be able to >>vote for the charter amendment, which in his >>view would meet the special voting eligibility >>requirement for a charter amendment vote. >> >>I responded that though technically it may meet >>the requirement, which too I doubt, it does not >>observe the intent of the charter in spirit, >>since the special condition of more strict >>eligibility conditions for voting for charter >>amendment has been put there with a clear >>purpose of avoiding capture. It is for this >>reason that the charter seeks to put some clear >>time and space between the participation of >>anyone in a vote for charter amendment and her/ >>his affirmation of IGC membership through >>participation in an earlier election, when, >>presumably, he/ she would have no idea of a >>possible participation in a charter amendment >>vote. >> >> The present process, whereby any voting can be >>held immediately preceding, but as a part of the >>same process of, a charter amendment vote >>almost looks like writing a plan on how to >>subvert the charter requirement of more >>stringent voting criteria for charter amendment. >>Even though the present exercise may be >>well-intentioned, the fact that it opens up a >>dangerous future possibility bother me a lot. >> >>I therefore consider the present voting process >>as not proper, and propose a discussion on this >>issue. >> >>Parminder >> >> >> >>On Wednesday 29 September 2010 10:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>>You should just have received a personal email >>>inviting you to cast your vote for the next >>>co-coordinator of the IGC. After you confirm >>>your eligibility and cast your vote, you will >>>also become eligible to vote on the >>>recently-discussed charter amendment. >>> >>>If you did not receive your personal invitation >>>email, please first check your junk email >>>folder, and if you still do not have it, let me >>>know. >>> >>> >>>The draft form of the coordinator ballot and >>>charter poll has been approved by Ginger also, >>>but I will take primary responsibility for any >>>disputes that people may wish to raise about >>>the process adopted. >>> >>>The 2009 appeals team (Jeanette Hofmann, Adam >>>Peake, Carlos Alfonso, Ken Lohento and Fouad >>>Bajwa), who have not yet been replaced for >>>2010, are (I hope) also available to hear any >>>disagreements. >>> >>>Following the informal procedure adopted in >>>previous years (the charter is, surprisingly, >>>silent), the election ballot and charter poll >>>will be open for 10 days from now, which ends >>>on 9 September 2010, "rounded up" until >>>midnight that night. >>> >>>The last subscriber who is eligible to affirm >>>IGC membership is Alan Greenberg, who >>>subscribed on 23 July 2010. The first >>>subscriber who missed out on that opportunity >>>is Giorgio Simeoli who subscribed on 10 August. >>> One >>>subscriber, emisa+ig at gmail.com >>>has an email address that is not technically >>>capable of receiving a personalised invitation >>> >>>-- >>> >>>Jeremy Malcolm >>>Project Coordinator >>>Consumers International >>>Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >>>Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, >>>TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>>CI is 50 >>>Consumers International marks 50 years of the >>>global consumer movement in 2010. >>>Celebrate with us as we continue to support, >>>promote 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 -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 29 07:36:02 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:06:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4CA324A2.80701@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 29 September 2010 04:54 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > The problem with the interpretation to "avoid capture" of only > allowing charter votes from those who voted in the last election is > that it greatly facilitates a different kind of capture: Paul, at this point the issue is not about one view against another, but the letter of the charter of the IGC, which clearly has a different eligibility criterion for voting in a charter amendment than any other voting. It states that "In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter." Pl see http://www.igcaucus.org/charter . I know you are a great upholder of letter and spirit of the 'law' and will see the point in this perspective. Parminder > One may > monitor those who voted in the last election and, when that mix is > favorable, ram through the charter amendment based on this subset of > the total electorate. And then another amendment could be passed, > based on the same consideration of not having voted in the last > election. Perhaps this could be called "super-capture." > > I've written before that a proper interpretation, at least in my view, > of the Charter would result in a fair and democratic voting method, > but it hasn't been interpreted consistently that way in the past. > > The odd thing is that I am valuable enough to at least be asked about > the Charter, and yet after missing one election I have never been > qualified or registered to vote at any time in the year or two I've > been on the list. Perhaps I am now, but it's hard for me to know > because some of the procedures are, to me, democratically > counter-intuitive. > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > On 9/29/10, parminder wrote: > >> Dear All >> >> This is to draw you attention to an important matter. >> >> The voting eligibility for charter amendment and for any other voting, >> including for electing a coordinator is very different. While for the >> latter, anyone who has been on the list for two months and affirms >> membership through declaring commitment to the charter can vote, for a >> charter amendment only those who have voted for the last election/ >> voting can vote. This special condition has been put for voting on any >> charter amendment to avoid capture, since charter amendment is quite a >> serious matter, since through any such amendment the very nature of and >> procedures adopted by the caucus can be changed. >> >> When I read that voting for charter amendment and for electing a new >> coordinator will take place at the same time, I brought the above issue >> to the attention of the co-coordinator in-charge of the voting/election, >> Jeremy, and requested that since there are different voting eligibility >> conditions for the two proposed voting, holding them together will cause >> confusion and should therefore be avoided. I preferred that charter >> amendment be held separately before the coordinator election, with the >> voter list consisting of all those who had voted for the last election, >> as is expressly required by the charter. >> >> Jeremy replied that he is going to overcome this problem simply by >> having a single process whereby the coordinator voting immediately >> precedes the charter amendment vote, and it will 'technically' be >> ensured that only those who vote for coordinator election will be able >> to vote for the charter amendment, which in his view would meet the >> special voting eligibility requirement for a charter amendment vote. >> >> I responded that though technically it may meet the requirement, which >> too I doubt, it does not observe the intent of the charter in spirit, >> since the special condition of more strict eligibility conditions for >> voting for charter amendment has been put there with a clear purpose of >> avoiding capture. It is for this reason that the charter seeks to put >> some clear time and space between the participation of anyone in a vote >> for charter amendment and her/ his affirmation of IGC membership through >> participation in an earlier election, when, presumably, he/ she would >> have no idea of a possible participation in a charter amendment vote. >> >> The present process, whereby any voting can be held immediately >> preceding, but as a part of the same process of, a charter amendment >> vote almost looks like writing a plan on how to subvert the charter >> requirement of more stringent voting criteria for charter amendment. >> Even though the present exercise may be well-intentioned, the fact that >> it opens up a dangerous future possibility bother me a lot. >> >> I therefore consider the present voting process as not proper, and >> propose a discussion on this issue. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> On Wednesday 29 September 2010 10:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> You should just have received a personal email inviting you to cast >>> your vote for the next co-coordinator of the IGC. After you confirm >>> your eligibility and cast your vote, you will also become eligible to >>> vote on the recently-discussed charter amendment. >>> >>> If you did not receive your personal invitation email, please first >>> check your junk email folder, and if you still do not have it, let me >>> know. >>> >>> The draft form of the coordinator ballot and charter poll has been >>> approved by Ginger also, but I will take primary responsibility for >>> any disputes that people may wish to raise about the process adopted. >>> >>> The 2009 appeals team (Jeanette Hofmann, Adam Peake, Carlos >>> Alfonso, Ken Lohento and Fouad Bajwa), who have not yet been replaced >>> for 2010, are (I hope) also available to hear any disagreements. >>> >>> Following the informal procedure adopted in previous years (the >>> charter is, surprisingly, silent), the election ballot and charter >>> poll will be open for 10 days from now, which ends on 9 September >>> 2010, "rounded up" until midnight that night. >>> >>> The last subscriber who is eligible to affirm IGC membership is Alan >>> Greenberg, who subscribed on 23 July 2010. The first subscriber who >>> missed out on that opportunity is Giorgio Simeoli who subscribed on 10 >>> August. One subscriber, emisa+ig at gmail.com >>> has an email address that is not >>> technically capable of receiving a personalised invitation >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Jeremy Malcolm >>> Project Coordinator* >>> Consumers International >>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>> Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> *CI is 50* >>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement >>> in 2010. >>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 Wed Sep 29 07:39:16 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:39:16 +0500 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi all, I received the message for voting and I was confused to see 7 questions and then a confirmation from Jeremy that I had completed a survey and inquisitiveness to me further to explore what it was.The questions took me through the vote for Co-Coordinator, nomination committees (selecting one to do all tasks) to select CSTD WG member nominations, MAG member nominations (where as none has been announced on the governance list) and appeals team nomination. First, I might have missed some form of call that may have been specifically given prior to whether this would be an election, a survey or a combination of both, without the prior consensus of the governance list. Please confirm. Second, there was a separate call for IGC nominations for the CSTD WG to which I forwarded my nomination as well as made the comment that we should be able to ensure that nominations would be actually present during the two meetings in Geneva in Nov'10 and Feb'11 but no confirmation came through whether we should discuss this possibility and finally no call has been made for MAG members from the IGF Secretariat nor on the IGC list and third the appeals team is set to end in 2011 and thus there is sufficient time to constitute three different Nomination Selection committees. The first for the CSTD WG selection that may be done with the amendment of the two month prior requirement. The MAG nomination committee can be constituted when the IGF Secretariat actually sends a call that new members need to be nomination. Finally there is sufficient time for the Appeals Team next year. Finally on the issue of capture. There is sufficient time to review the IGC charter as we move towards a possible IGF mandate renewal to enable more participation and reduce issues of capture and we can start a separate thread for Charter Improvements. I am still not sure about whether the two month requirement has to be there, this is debatable but I would prefer it on a separate purposefully focused thread on the issue. I would like to request this approach of merging Election plus Survey to be deemed as in-appropriate because it has been very confusing. I appreciate Jeremy's effort but I am not in right of merging and creating confusion on two different processes and gluing them into Nomination Committees issues and then the misunderstandings of Charter amendments to build up like this. -- Fouad Bajwa On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:13 PM, parminder wrote: > Dear All > > This is to draw you attention to an important matter. > > The voting eligibility for charter amendment and for any other voting, > including for electing a coordinator is very different. While for the > latter, anyone who has been on the list for two months and affirms > membership through declaring commitment to the charter can vote, for a > charter amendment only those who have voted for the last election/ voting > can vote. This special condition has been put for voting on any charter > amendment to avoid capture, since charter amendment is quite a serious > matter, since through any such amendment the very nature of and procedures > adopted by the caucus can be changed. > > When I read that voting for charter amendment and for electing a new > coordinator will take place at the same time, I brought the above issue to > the attention of the co-coordinator in-charge of the voting/election, > Jeremy, and requested that since there are different voting eligibility > conditions for the two proposed voting, holding them together will cause > confusion and should therefore be avoided. I preferred that charter > amendment be held separately before the coordinator election, with the voter > list consisting of all those who had voted for the last election, as is > expressly required by the charter. > > Jeremy replied that he is going to overcome this problem simply by having a > single process whereby the coordinator voting immediately precedes the > charter amendment vote, and it will 'technically' be ensured that only those > who vote for coordinator election will be able to vote for the charter > amendment, which in his view would meet the special voting eligibility > requirement for a charter amendment vote. > > I responded that though technically it may meet the requirement, which too I > doubt, it does not observe the intent of the charter in spirit, since the > special condition of more strict eligibility conditions for voting for > charter amendment has been put there with a clear purpose of avoiding > capture. It is for this reason that the charter seeks to put some clear time > and space between the participation of anyone in a vote for charter > amendment and her/ his affirmation of IGC membership through participation > in an earlier election, when, presumably, he/ she would have no idea of a > possible participation in a charter amendment vote. > >  The present process, whereby any voting can be held immediately preceding, > but as a part of the same process of,  a charter amendment vote almost looks > like writing a plan on how to subvert the charter requirement of more > stringent voting criteria for charter amendment. Even though the present > exercise may be well-intentioned, the fact that it opens up a dangerous > future possibility bother me a lot. > > I therefore consider the present voting process as not proper, and propose a > discussion on this issue. > > Parminder > > > > On Wednesday 29 September 2010 10:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > You should just have received a personal email inviting you to cast your > vote for the next co-coordinator of the IGC.  After you confirm your > eligibility and cast your vote, you will also become eligible to vote on the > recently-discussed charter amendment. > If you did not receive your personal invitation email, please first check > your junk email folder, and if you still do not have it, let me know. > > The draft form of the coordinator ballot and charter poll has been approved > by Ginger also, but I will take primary responsibility for any disputes that > people may wish to raise about the process adopted. > The 2009 appeals team (Jeanette Hofmann, Adam Peake, Carlos Alfonso, Ken > Lohento and Fouad Bajwa), who have not yet been replaced for 2010, are (I > hope) also available to hear any disagreements. > Following the informal procedure adopted in previous years (the charter is, > surprisingly, silent), the election ballot and charter poll will be open for > 10 days from now, which ends on 9 September 2010, "rounded up" until > midnight that night. > The last subscriber who is eligible to affirm IGC membership is Alan > Greenberg, who subscribed on 23 July 2010.  The first subscriber who missed > out on that opportunity is Giorgio Simeoli who subscribed on 10 August.  One > subscriber, emisa+ig at gmail.com has an email address that is not technically > capable of receiving a personalised invitation > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Sep 29 07:43:06 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:43:06 +0500 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: <4CA324A2.80701@itforchange.net> References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> <4CA324A2.80701@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Yes Parminder and Paul, This is a clearly mentioned clause in the IGC Charter which has not been requested for amendment until now as per my knowledge. There is a clearly mentioned process for amendments as well that can be followed in the near future for any possible improvements with IGC member consensus but a process/thread should have been started prior to the confusing election+survey and attempt to reach a decision over so many issues in one go? On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:36 PM, parminder wrote: > > > On Wednesday 29 September 2010 04:54 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > > The problem with the interpretation to "avoid capture" of only > allowing charter votes from those who voted in the last election is > that it greatly facilitates a different kind of capture: > > Paul, at this point the issue is not about one view against another, but the > letter of the charter of the IGC, which clearly has a different eligibility > criterion for voting in a charter amendment than any other voting. It states > that > > "In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will > be deemed a member for amending the charter." > > Pl see http://www.igcaucus.org/charter . I know you are a great upholder of > letter and spirit of the 'law' and will see the point in this perspective. > Parminder > > > One may > monitor those who voted in the last election and, when that mix is > favorable, ram through the charter amendment based on this subset of > the total electorate. And then another amendment could be passed, > based on the same consideration of not having voted in the last > election. Perhaps this could be called "super-capture." > > I've written before that a proper interpretation, at least in my view, > of the Charter would result in a fair and democratic voting method, > but it hasn't been interpreted consistently that way in the past. > > The odd thing is that I am valuable enough to at least be asked about > the Charter, and yet after missing one election I have never been > qualified or registered to vote at any time in the year or two I've > been on the list. Perhaps I am now, but it's hard for me to know > because some of the procedures are, to me, democratically > counter-intuitive. > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > On 9/29/10, parminder wrote: > > > Dear All > > This is to draw you attention to an important matter. > > The voting eligibility for charter amendment and for any other voting, > including for electing a coordinator is very different. While for the > latter, anyone who has been on the list for two months and affirms > membership through declaring commitment to the charter can vote, for a > charter amendment only those who have voted for the last election/ > voting can vote. This special condition has been put for voting on any > charter amendment to avoid capture, since charter amendment is quite a > serious matter, since through any such amendment the very nature of and > procedures adopted by the caucus can be changed. > > When I read that voting for charter amendment and for electing a new > coordinator will take place at the same time, I brought the above issue > to the attention of the co-coordinator in-charge of the voting/election, > Jeremy, and requested that since there are different voting eligibility > conditions for the two proposed voting, holding them together will cause > confusion and should therefore be avoided. I preferred that charter > amendment be held separately before the coordinator election, with the > voter list consisting of all those who had voted for the last election, > as is expressly required by the charter. > > Jeremy replied that he is going to overcome this problem simply by > having a single process whereby the coordinator voting immediately > precedes the charter amendment vote, and it will 'technically' be > ensured that only those who vote for coordinator election will be able > to vote for the charter amendment, which in his view would meet the > special voting eligibility requirement for a charter amendment vote. > > I responded that though technically it may meet the requirement, which > too I doubt, it does not observe the intent of the charter in spirit, > since the special condition of more strict eligibility conditions for > voting for charter amendment has been put there with a clear purpose of > avoiding capture. It is for this reason that the charter seeks to put > some clear time and space between the participation of anyone in a vote > for charter amendment and her/ his affirmation of IGC membership through > participation in an earlier election, when, presumably, he/ she would > have no idea of a possible participation in a charter amendment vote. > > The present process, whereby any voting can be held immediately > preceding, but as a part of the same process of, a charter amendment > vote almost looks like writing a plan on how to subvert the charter > requirement of more stringent voting criteria for charter amendment. > Even though the present exercise may be well-intentioned, the fact that > it opens up a dangerous future possibility bother me a lot. > > I therefore consider the present voting process as not proper, and > propose a discussion on this issue. > > Parminder > > > > On Wednesday 29 September 2010 10:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > You should just have received a personal email inviting you to cast > your vote for the next co-coordinator of the IGC. After you confirm > your eligibility and cast your vote, you will also become eligible to > vote on the recently-discussed charter amendment. > > If you did not receive your personal invitation email, please first > check your junk email folder, and if you still do not have it, let me > know. > > The draft form of the coordinator ballot and charter poll has been > approved by Ginger also, but I will take primary responsibility for > any disputes that people may wish to raise about the process adopted. > > The 2009 appeals team (Jeanette Hofmann, Adam Peake, Carlos > Alfonso, Ken Lohento and Fouad Bajwa), who have not yet been replaced > for 2010, are (I hope) also available to hear any disagreements. > > Following the informal procedure adopted in previous years (the > charter is, surprisingly, silent), the election ballot and charter > poll will be open for 10 days from now, which ends on 9 September > 2010, "rounded up" until midnight that night. > > The last subscriber who is eligible to affirm IGC membership is Alan > Greenberg, who subscribed on 23 July 2010. The first subscriber who > missed out on that opportunity is Giorgio Simeoli who subscribed on 10 > August. One subscriber, emisa+ig at gmail.com > has an email address that is not > technically capable of receiving a personalised invitation > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement > in 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 ca at cafonso.ca Wed Sep 29 07:48:47 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:48:47 -0300 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4CA3279F.8090704@cafonso.ca> Jean, the "statistics" shows only the number of votes cast. --c.a. On 09/29/2010 04:08 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator should > be made publicly available before the completion of the election. It may > affect the way people vote. > jeanette > > > > On 29.09.2010 06:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Please don't answer YES to "Have you already voted in this election?" >> if, in fact, you haven't done so. Answering YES will prevent you from >> being allowed to vote. A couple of people have already been caught by >> this (after verification of their error I deleted their original >> responses so they could try again). >> >> Another issue is that although you are presented with a link to the >> current statistics of the poll in progress after you complete your >> answers, there is no convenient way to get back to those statistics >> after you close your browser window. So to address this, here is a >> permanent link to the statistics: >> >> http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/statistics_user.php?action=statistics&sid=74518 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator* >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> *CI is 50* >> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement >> in 2010. >> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 > -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Sep 29 07:48:51 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:48:51 +0500 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In continuation of my previous message, I received the following message: Dear Fouad, This email is to confirm that you have completed the survey titled Internet Governance Caucus coordinator vote 2010 and your response has been saved. Thank you for participating. > Survey? Vote? Charter Amendments or Nomination Committee Selections? Confusing? -- Fouad On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Hi all, > > I received the message for voting and I was confused to see 7 > questions and then a confirmation from Jeremy that I had completed a > survey and inquisitiveness to me further to explore what it was.The > questions took me through the vote for Co-Coordinator, nomination > committees (selecting one to do all tasks) to select CSTD WG member > nominations, MAG member nominations (where as none has been announced > on the governance list) and appeals team nomination. > > First, I might have missed some form of call that may have been > specifically given prior to whether this would be an election, a > survey or a combination of both, without the prior consensus of the > governance list. Please confirm. > > Second, there was a separate call for IGC nominations for the CSTD WG > to which I forwarded my nomination as well as made the comment that we > should be able to ensure that nominations would be actually present > during the two meetings in Geneva in Nov'10 and Feb'11 but no > confirmation came through whether we should discuss this possibility > and finally no call has been made for MAG members from the IGF > Secretariat nor on the IGC list and third the appeals team is set to > end in 2011 and thus there is sufficient time to constitute three > different Nomination Selection committees. The first for the CSTD WG > selection that may be done with the amendment of the two month prior > requirement. The MAG nomination committee can be constituted when the > IGF Secretariat actually sends a call that new members need to be > nomination. Finally there is sufficient time for the Appeals Team next > year. > > Finally on the issue of capture. There is sufficient time to review > the IGC charter as we move towards a possible IGF mandate renewal to > enable more participation and reduce issues of capture and we can > start a separate thread for Charter Improvements. I am still not sure > about whether the two month requirement has to be there, this is > debatable but I would prefer it on a separate purposefully focused > thread on the issue. > > I would like to request this approach of merging Election plus Survey > to be deemed as in-appropriate because it has been very confusing. I > appreciate Jeremy's effort but I am not in right of merging and > creating confusion on two different processes and gluing them into > Nomination Committees issues and then the misunderstandings of Charter > amendments to build up like this. > > -- Fouad Bajwa > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:13 PM, parminder wrote: >> Dear All >> >> This is to draw you attention to an important matter. >> >> The voting eligibility for charter amendment and for any other voting, >> including for electing a coordinator is very different. While for the >> latter, anyone who has been on the list for two months and affirms >> membership through declaring commitment to the charter can vote, for a >> charter amendment only those who have voted for the last election/ voting >> can vote. This special condition has been put for voting on any charter >> amendment to avoid capture, since charter amendment is quite a serious >> matter, since through any such amendment the very nature of and procedures >> adopted by the caucus can be changed. >> >> When I read that voting for charter amendment and for electing a new >> coordinator will take place at the same time, I brought the above issue to >> the attention of the co-coordinator in-charge of the voting/election, >> Jeremy, and requested that since there are different voting eligibility >> conditions for the two proposed voting, holding them together will cause >> confusion and should therefore be avoided. I preferred that charter >> amendment be held separately before the coordinator election, with the voter >> list consisting of all those who had voted for the last election, as is >> expressly required by the charter. >> >> Jeremy replied that he is going to overcome this problem simply by having a >> single process whereby the coordinator voting immediately precedes the >> charter amendment vote, and it will 'technically' be ensured that only those >> who vote for coordinator election will be able to vote for the charter >> amendment, which in his view would meet the special voting eligibility >> requirement for a charter amendment vote. >> >> I responded that though technically it may meet the requirement, which too I >> doubt, it does not observe the intent of the charter in spirit, since the >> special condition of more strict eligibility conditions for voting for >> charter amendment has been put there with a clear purpose of avoiding >> capture. It is for this reason that the charter seeks to put some clear time >> and space between the participation of anyone in a vote for charter >> amendment and her/ his affirmation of IGC membership through participation >> in an earlier election, when, presumably, he/ she would have no idea of a >> possible participation in a charter amendment vote. >> >>  The present process, whereby any voting can be held immediately preceding, >> but as a part of the same process of,  a charter amendment vote almost looks >> like writing a plan on how to subvert the charter requirement of more >> stringent voting criteria for charter amendment. Even though the present >> exercise may be well-intentioned, the fact that it opens up a dangerous >> future possibility bother me a lot. >> >> I therefore consider the present voting process as not proper, and propose a >> discussion on this issue. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> On Wednesday 29 September 2010 10:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> You should just have received a personal email inviting you to cast your >> vote for the next co-coordinator of the IGC.  After you confirm your >> eligibility and cast your vote, you will also become eligible to vote on the >> recently-discussed charter amendment. >> If you did not receive your personal invitation email, please first check >> your junk email folder, and if you still do not have it, let me know. >> >> The draft form of the coordinator ballot and charter poll has been approved >> by Ginger also, but I will take primary responsibility for any disputes that >> people may wish to raise about the process adopted. >> The 2009 appeals team (Jeanette Hofmann, Adam Peake, Carlos Alfonso, Ken >> Lohento and Fouad Bajwa), who have not yet been replaced for 2010, are (I >> hope) also available to hear any disagreements. >> Following the informal procedure adopted in previous years (the charter is, >> surprisingly, silent), the election ballot and charter poll will be open for >> 10 days from now, which ends on 9 September 2010, "rounded up" until >> midnight that night. >> The last subscriber who is eligible to affirm IGC membership is Alan >> Greenberg, who subscribed on 23 July 2010.  The first subscriber who missed >> out on that opportunity is Giorgio Simeoli who subscribed on 10 August.  One >> subscriber, emisa+ig at gmail.com has an email address that is not technically >> capable of receiving a personalised invitation >> >> -- >> >> Jeremy Malcolm ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Sep 29 07:50:44 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:50:44 -0300 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> <7C039271-F6B1-472E-B084-C6C4EE57DFE8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4CA32814.1000102@cafonso.ca> I disagree as per my earlier msg on this. What difference does it make to know how many people already voted regarding each one's choices when voting? The "stats" just show the total number of votes already cast. --c.a. On 09/29/2010 04:18 AM, David Souter wrote: > I agree with Jeanette. > > DS > > ----- Start Original Message ----- > Sent: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:10:15 +0800 > From: Jeremy Malcolm > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, > Jeanette Hofmann > Subject: Re: [governance] Tips about the election process > >> On 29/09/2010, at 3:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >>> I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator should be made publicly available before the completion of the election. It may affect the way people vote. >> >> What do others think? I can shut down the statistics for now if this view is commonly held. >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> CI is 50 >> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. >> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. >> http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> > > ----- 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 -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Sep 29 07:51:45 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:51:45 -0300 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <90D516C7-C95D-410C-9764-C1E26521330E@bytesforall.net> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> <90D516C7-C95D-410C-9764-C1E26521330E@bytesforall.net> Message-ID: <4CA32851.9080707@cafonso.ca> Did anyone who are agreeing with Jean actually visit the stats page? --c.a. On 09/29/2010 04:46 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Agreed with Jeanette. The statistics should not be made available before > completion of the process > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> Hi Jeremy, >> >> I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator >> should be made publicly available before the completion of the >> election. It may affect the way people vote. >> jeanette >> >> >> >> On 29.09.2010 06:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> Please don't answer YES to "Have you already voted in this election?" >>> if, in fact, you haven't done so. Answering YES will prevent you from >>> being allowed to vote. A couple of people have already been caught by >>> this (after verification of their error I deleted their original >>> responses so they could try again). >>> >>> Another issue is that although you are presented with a link to the >>> current statistics of the poll in progress after you complete your >>> answers, there is no convenient way to get back to those statistics >>> after you close your browser window. So to address this, here is a >>> permanent link to the statistics: >>> >>> http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/statistics_user.php?action=statistics&sid=74518 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Jeremy Malcolm >>> Project Coordinator* >>> Consumers International >>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>> Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> *CI is 50* >>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement >>> in 2010. >>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 glaser at nic.br Wed Sep 29 07:53:11 2010 From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Glaser) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:53:11 -0300 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4CA328A7.1090403@nic.br> +1 ------------------------------------------------------------- On 29/09/2010 04:08, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator > should be made publicly available before the completion of the > election. It may affect the way people vote. > jeanette > > > > On 29.09.2010 06:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Please don't answer YES to "Have you already voted in this election?" >> if, in fact, you haven't done so. Answering YES will prevent you from >> being allowed to vote. A couple of people have already been caught by >> this (after verification of their error I deleted their original >> responses so they could try again). >> >> Another issue is that although you are presented with a link to the >> current statistics of the poll in progress after you complete your >> answers, there is no convenient way to get back to those statistics >> after you close your browser window. So to address this, here is a >> permanent link to the statistics: >> >> http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/statistics_user.php?action=statistics&sid=74518 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator* >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> *CI is 50* >> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement >> in 2010. >> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 david.souter at runbox.com Wed Sep 29 07:57:59 2010 From: david.souter at runbox.com (David Souter) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:57:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <4CA32851.9080707@cafonso.ca> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> <90D516C7-C95D-410C-9764-C1E26521330E@bytesforall.net> <4CA32851.9080707@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <006e01cb5fcd$90424e30$b0c6ea90$@souter@runbox.com> Yes, I did. It did, at the time I visited, give a breakdown of the number of votes cast for each candidate up to that point in time. 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) -----Original Message----- From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] Sent: 29 September 2010 12:52 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Shahzad Ahmad Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] Tips about the election process Did anyone who are agreeing with Jean actually visit the stats page? --c.a. On 09/29/2010 04:46 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Agreed with Jeanette. The statistics should not be made available before > completion of the process > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> Hi Jeremy, >> >> I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator >> should be made publicly available before the completion of the >> election. It may affect the way people vote. >> jeanette >> >> >> >> On 29.09.2010 06:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> Please don't answer YES to "Have you already voted in this election?" >>> if, in fact, you haven't done so. Answering YES will prevent you from >>> being allowed to vote. A couple of people have already been caught by >>> this (after verification of their error I deleted their original >>> responses so they could try again). >>> >>> Another issue is that although you are presented with a link to the >>> current statistics of the poll in progress after you complete your >>> answers, there is no convenient way to get back to those statistics >>> after you close your browser window. So to address this, here is a >>> permanent link to the statistics: >>> >>> http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/statistics_user.php?action=statistics&sid=7 4518 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Jeremy Malcolm >>> Project Coordinator* >>> Consumers International >>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>> Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> *CI is 50* >>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement >>> in 2010. >>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 29 07:59:58 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 07:29:58 -0430 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <4CA32851.9080707@cafonso.ca> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> <90D516C7-C95D-410C-9764-C1E26521330E@bytesforall.net> <4CA32851.9080707@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4CA32A3E.2090402@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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Sep 29 08:00:18 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:00:18 +0500 Subject: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 In-Reply-To: <4CA2EDF7.2070008@gmail.com> References: <4C9DE370.9040108@gmail.com> <4CA1EAA8.20007@gih.com> <4CA2EDF7.2070008@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, just out of inquisitiveness, were any WebEx people available from the company itself at the IGF meeting that may have seen this acid test in action and observed the technical issues and problems so that they could take that feedback to their company for improvements. These one of those very few global examples for testing such a system and improving it after such a large scale live test? I also this to be one of the key evolutions in the field of remote participation and the need to invest in one system by many parties. By investment I mean the need to provide development, technical/documentation and continued support to a Free and Open Source Software based e-video conference system that can emerge to support all such meetings world wide. A single company never receives the commitment of volunteers and developers around the world to mature into a globally usable product. For example, VLC live stream was being test during the IGF open consultations in June 2010 in Geneva from a group of European volunteers that were also improving the system directly by participating in its development and upon my discussion with them they shared that they were contributing modules and testing issues of latency etc. This is a very important moment that some sort of effort be established where the Internet Governance community can identify and build upon and support one system that can then become a continued practice so that maturity can be achieved. to a greater extent. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > 'Having been the remote moderator of many sessions this year, I'm afraid > that this is a little premature yet. I have encountered more than a fair > share of technical problems, which I am planning on writing a report on, as > a part of my ISOC Ambassador project.' > > Thanks for continuing the discussion. These ideas are indeed hypothetical > future possibilities, not actual proposals for the next IGF.  Part of our > discussions and strategy is envisioning future scenarios. Although, as you > note, some meetings are already held with only a small in situ core, with > most participants in their home offices, joining the discussion online, we > do have to build a practical strategy for the IGF. > > We appreciate and will study your comments, and I invite you (Olivier) and > others to continue the discussion here, or in the forum we will open online > using the WS 126 transcript as a foundation. I will post a link here as soon > as the transcript is uploaded to the DISCUSS site. I hope you will send the > Remote Participation Working Group (and me) a copy of your report. > > Thanks! Best, 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. > On 9/28/2010 8:46 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > Dear Ginger, > > thank you for your message regarding remote participation at the IGF Vilnius > 2010. It was indeed a great success, and thanks to all of the hard work by > all concerned. > > In his recent reply to your message, Izumi Aizu made a particularly > interesting suggestion: > >>How about, making things "upside-down"? >>I mean at physical meeting of the IGF, how about making the >>main speakers and participants all remote? So far, the remote >>participation and participants are regarded as supplementary, >>but not given a front-seat status. But think of online chat or >>conference call where no one is physically present and taking >>floors as main participants. Everyone is remote. At IGF, we can >>have the physical participants there, but making most speakers >>and interactions online, webcast, chat etc. > > Having been the remote moderator of many sessions this year, I'm afraid that > this is a little premature yet. I have encountered more than a fair share of > technical problems, which I am planning on writing a report on, as a part of > my ISOC Ambassador project. > > In short, I believe that the technology is not mature enough yet. The > difficulty does not stem from a single system; it is the inter-connection of > the variety of technologies used, which hinders a smooth flow of > information. > Conducting work in a timely manner using 100% teleconferencing and a virtual > room has been demonstrated on many an occasion at ICANN. I recently found > out in two large working teams, the "Special Trademark Issues team", and the > "Community Working Group on New gTLD Rec-6", that, provided with an > excellent and experienced leadership (Dave Maher for the first group, and > Chuck Gomez for the second), it is possible to work on some of the most > controversial subject and reach consensus, even without a face to face > meeting. > > However, the moment you introduce a segment of the conference participants > to attend physically, serious technical problems hinder progress. > > The first problem is that of the reliability of the Internet connection. In > my interactions, I noticed remote participants and hubs timing out due to > network problems somewhere along the line. Text chatting is usually most > resilient to this, because it does not require much bandwidth, but in order > to fully engage remote participants in discussions, you need to give them > the ability to speak, rather than only type. > > And this is where the main problem lies: the interfacing of many different > systems (a public address system in the physical location, a Webex session, > a telephone bridge etc.), you end up with problems like feedback loops, > distorsion, unaudible speech and seriously distorted speech which breaks the > concentration of participants and hinders their ability to devote 100% of > their mind to elaborate a constructive argument. > Public address systems are designed to automatically suppress instantaneous > feedback, either by digital or analogue analysis of the speech. Webex > performs the same thing too. Ditto for telephone bridges. But when you > interface all three, unquantified delays outside the tolerance of these > suppression systems start appearing, and you end up with loops - sometimes > several seconds long. The equipment used to broadcast the sessions > automatically introduces delays. In some sessions, for example, we ended up > with infinite echoes, sometimes 6 seconds long - and a dialogue with a > remote participant became confusing - bordering on the impossible. We tried > so many different ways to remove this, and it appeared to be impossible with > the current set-up. > > A lot of work and testing will therefore need to be done, if we ultimately > wish to make things "upside down". The fact that we're already engaged in > testing this, is very good news indeed, but I don't think that we're there > yet. > > Finally, let me also mention that the IETF's "VMEET" group is also looking > at this problematic. Like many other organisations relying on a > multi-stakeholder input, the subject of remote public participation has been > a concern for some time. Thomas Narten has drafted an interesting Internet > Draft document (sadly now expired, so I encourage Thomas to follow-up on > this), which can still be found on: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-ietf-remote-participation > > In some way, the IGF's remote participation this year appears to have > surpassed this stage already, and has been the first wide scale, global > experiment of such kind. I really hope that this will encourage everyone to > continue testing new technologies. I hope it will encourage remote > conferencing software manufacturers, and not only Webex, to capitalise on > this experience and improve their products. You and your team have reached > "proof of concept". Let's hope, for the sake of the millions of people out > there who would like to participate, and not only for the lucky few of us > who are funded to attend physically, that in some years to come, technology > will allow us to participate fully from the four corners of our planet. > > Last but not least, I hope that there will be cross-linking of knowledge and > experience in this area, whether ISOC, IETF, IGF or ICANN... or any other > group for that matter. We, the privileged few, have a duty to work overtime > to promote this digital inclusion. Without it, we're just a déjà-vu > pot-pourri of "The usual suspects". > > Kindest regards, > > Olivier > > Le 25/09/2010 12:56, Ginger Paque a écrit : > > Remote participation at the IGF Vilnius 2010 raised the bar for remote > participation in international public policy meetings. Not in sheer volume, > although 600+ individuals is a good number, but in actual inclusion and > participation, with 33 registered remote hubs and dozens of remote > panelists, this IGF was indeed a global success. While there was successful > remote observation with excellent webcast, audiocast and captioning, there > was also the possibility of real remote participation for those who wanted > to comment, ask questions and respond, with the same privileges and > priorities as those who attended in person. > > The next step will be to ensure that remote participants take advantage of > this possibility, and that remote moderators learn to transmit the interest > and personal power of the comments so that their impact is tangibly felt in > the meeting room. > > An interesting (unforeseen) development was chat exchanges between remote > hubs on the WebEx platform, as remote hubs gave feedback to presentations or > comments by other remote hubs. > > Pre-IGF preparations were better than ever, with strategy, planning, > training and information from the first 2010 OC in Geneva. > > I would like to thank the volunteer remote moderators from the panels, > DiploFoundation fellows and the ISOC ambassadors program for their > engagement and precious time and energy; the Lithuania host for their > support and their tech teams; the IGF Secretariat for their support and > follow-up, DiploFoundation for constant backup, and my fellow RPWG members > for their year-round worry, work and dynamic involvement. > > Thanks to all of the hub organizers for their work to include people from > all over the world in this meeting too. > > The RPWG will publish a report later this year. We look forward to your > comments and suggestions. > > Warm regards, > Ginger > -- > > -- > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 29 08:02:00 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:02:00 +0500 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <4CA32851.9080707@cafonso.ca> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> <90D516C7-C95D-410C-9764-C1E26521330E@bytesforall.net> <4CA32851.9080707@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I did Carlos when I went through the survey or election or whatever that was. On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Did anyone who are agreeing with Jean actually visit the stats page? > > --c.a. > > On 09/29/2010 04:46 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >> >> Agreed with Jeanette. The statistics should not be made available before >> completion of the process >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >>> Hi Jeremy, >>> >>> I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator >>> should be made publicly available before the completion of the >>> election. It may affect the way people vote. >>> jeanette >>> >>> >>> >>> On 29.09.2010 06:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> >>>> Please don't answer YES to "Have you already voted in this election?" >>>> if, in fact, you haven't done so. Answering YES will prevent you from >>>> being allowed to vote. A couple of people have already been caught by >>>> this (after verification of their error I deleted their original >>>> responses so they could try again). >>>> >>>> Another issue is that although you are presented with a link to the >>>> current statistics of the poll in progress after you complete your >>>> answers, there is no convenient way to get back to those statistics >>>> after you close your browser window. So to address this, here is a >>>> permanent link to the statistics: >>>> >>>> >>>> http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/statistics_user.php?action=statistics&sid=74518 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> *Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Project Coordinator* >>>> Consumers International >>>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>>> Malaysia >>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>> >>>> *CI is 50* >>>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement >>>> in 2010. >>>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 > -- 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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Wed Sep 29 08:05:12 2010 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:05:12 +0300 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <4CA32A3E.2090402@paque.net> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> <90D516C7-C95D-410C-9764-C1E26521330E@bytesforall.net> <4CA32851.9080707@cafonso.ca> <4CA32A3E.2090402@paque.net> Message-ID: <20100929120512.GN13256@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 07:29:58AM -0430, Ginger Paque (gpaque at gmail.com) wrote: > I visited the page Carlos. I agree that there is a possibility that > someone might be influenced in their vote if they see the current > status of the votes. However, it seems that you can only see the stats > after you vote... so maybe it isn't that important? Except that Jeremy posted the link to this list, and people could use it before voting. But now that it's been changed so that only the total vote count is shown I don't find it so problematic any more (even though I think I'd prefer hiding even that). -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Sep 29 08:13:26 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:13:26 -0300 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <006e01cb5fcd$90424e30$b0c6ea90$@souter@runbox.com> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> <90D516C7-C95D-410C-9764-C1E26521330E@bytesforall.net> <4CA32851.9080707@cafonso.ca> <006e01cb5fcd$90424e30$b0c6ea90$@souter@runbox.com> Message-ID: <4CA32D66.7010100@cafonso.ca> Uh-oh, OK, when I voted it did not. Then no need to change now, right? --c.a. On 09/29/2010 08:57 AM, David Souter wrote: > Yes, I did. It did, at the time I visited, give a breakdown of the number > of votes cast for each candidate up to that point in time. > > 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) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] > Sent: 29 September 2010 12:52 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Shahzad Ahmad > Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; Jeremy Malcolm > Subject: Re: [governance] Tips about the election process > > Did anyone who are agreeing with Jean actually visit the stats page? > > --c.a. > > On 09/29/2010 04:46 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >> Agreed with Jeanette. The statistics should not be made available before >> completion of the process >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >>> Hi Jeremy, >>> >>> I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator >>> should be made publicly available before the completion of the >>> election. It may affect the way people vote. >>> jeanette >>> >>> >>> >>> On 29.09.2010 06:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> Please don't answer YES to "Have you already voted in this election?" >>>> if, in fact, you haven't done so. Answering YES will prevent you from >>>> being allowed to vote. A couple of people have already been caught by >>>> this (after verification of their error I deleted their original >>>> responses so they could try again). >>>> >>>> Another issue is that although you are presented with a link to the >>>> current statistics of the poll in progress after you complete your >>>> answers, there is no convenient way to get back to those statistics >>>> after you close your browser window. So to address this, here is a >>>> permanent link to the statistics: >>>> >>>> > http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/statistics_user.php?action=statistics&sid=7 > 4518 >>>> >>>> > 74518> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> *Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Project Coordinator* >>>> Consumers International >>>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>>> Malaysia >>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>> >>>> *CI is 50* >>>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement >>>> in 2010. >>>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect >>>> consumer rights around the world. >>>> _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_ >>>> >>>> Read our email confidentiality notice >>>> > 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 From avri at psg.com Wed Sep 29 08:22:14 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:22:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu><7C039271-F6B1-472E-B084-C6C4EE57DFE8@ciroap.org> <1587001722-1285745705-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1594360116 -@bda2016.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <373D95A0-3610-4943-A934-79BE0CCC06BD@psg.com> Hi, I agree that Parminder is correct about the charter's voting basis for charter amendments. Did not think of it while voting, but I have not had coffee yet. And Adam's prescription might be a way to deal with it, assuming the votes can be separated in some automatic way. If not, it seems there would have to be a separate vote on the amendment. a. On 29 Sep 2010, at 03:39, Adam Peake wrote: > agree with Jeanette (and Jonathan's comment on horses :-)) > > Adam > > > >> I agree with Jeanette - even if partial stats have "left the stable" they are a weak signal - a few horses, not the herd. >> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeremy Malcolm >> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:10:15 >> To: ; Jeanette Hofmann >> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Jeremy Malcolm >> Subject: Re: [governance] Tips about the election process >> >> On 29/09/2010, at 3:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >>> I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator should be made publicly available before the completion of the election. It may affect the way people vote. >> >> What do others think? I can shut down the statistics for now if this view is commonly held. >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> CI is 50 >> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. >> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. >> http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Wed Sep 29 08:28:44 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:28:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 In-Reply-To: <4CA1EAA8.20007@gih.com> References: <4C9DE370.9040108@gmail.com> <4CA1EAA8.20007@gih.com> Message-ID: 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 On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > Dear Ginger, > > thank you for your message regarding remote participation at the IGF > Vilnius 2010. It was indeed a great success, and thanks to all of the hard > work by all concerned. > > In his recent reply to your message, Izumi Aizu made a particularly > interesting suggestion: > > > >How about, making things "upside-down"? > >I mean at physical meeting of the IGF, how about making the > >main speakers and participants all remote? So far, the remote > >participation and participants are regarded as supplementary, > >but not given a front-seat status. But think of online chat or > >conference call where no one is physically present and taking > >floors as main participants. Everyone is remote. At IGF, we can > >have the physical participants there, but making most speakers > >and interactions online, webcast, chat etc. > > Having been the remote moderator of many sessions this year, I'm afraid > that this is a little premature yet. I have encountered more than a fair > share of technical problems, which I am planning on writing a report on, as > a part of my ISOC Ambassador project. > > In short, I believe that the technology is not mature enough yet. The > difficulty does not stem from a single system; it is the inter-connection of > the variety of technologies used, which hinders a smooth flow of > information. > Conducting work in a timely manner using 100% teleconferencing and a > virtual room has been demonstrated on many an occasion at ICANN. I recently > found out in two large working teams, the "Special Trademark Issues team", > and the "Community Working Group on New gTLD Rec-6", that, provided with an > excellent and experienced leadership (Dave Maher for the first group, and > Chuck Gomez for the second), it is possible to work on some of the most > controversial subject and reach consensus, even without a face to face > meeting. > > However, the moment you introduce a segment of the conference participants > to attend physically, serious technical problems hinder progress. > > The first problem is that of the reliability of the Internet connection. In > my interactions, I noticed remote participants and hubs timing out due to > network problems somewhere along the line. Text chatting is usually most > resilient to this, because it does not require much bandwidth, but in order > to fully engage remote participants in discussions, you need to give them > the ability to speak, rather than only type. > > And this is where the main problem lies: the interfacing of many different > systems (a public address system in the physical location, a Webex session, > a telephone bridge etc.), you end up with problems like feedback loops, > distorsion, unaudible speech and seriously distorted speech which breaks the > concentration of participants and hinders their ability to devote 100% of > their mind to elaborate a constructive argument. > Public address systems are designed to automatically suppress instantaneous > feedback, either by digital or analogue analysis of the speech. Webex > performs the same thing too. Ditto for telephone bridges. But when you > interface all three, unquantified delays outside the tolerance of these > suppression systems start appearing, and you end up with loops - sometimes > several seconds long. The equipment used to broadcast the sessions > automatically introduces delays. In some sessions, for example, we ended up > with infinite echoes, sometimes 6 seconds long - and a dialogue with a > remote participant became confusing - bordering on the impossible. We tried > so many different ways to remove this, and it appeared to be impossible with > the current set-up. > > A lot of work and testing will therefore need to be done, if we ultimately > wish to make things "upside down". The fact that we're already engaged in > testing this, is very good news indeed, but I don't think that we're there > yet. > > Finally, let me also mention that the IETF's "VMEET" group is also looking > at this problematic. Like many other organisations relying on a > multi-stakeholder input, the subject of remote public participation has been > a concern for some time. Thomas Narten has drafted an interesting Internet > Draft document (sadly now expired, so I encourage Thomas to follow-up on > this), which can still be found on: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-ietf-remote-participation > > In some way, the IGF's remote participation this year appears to have > surpassed this stage already, and has been the first wide scale, global > experiment of such kind. I really hope that this will encourage everyone to > continue testing new technologies. I hope it will encourage remote > conferencing software manufacturers, and not only Webex, to capitalise on > this experience and improve their products. You and your team have reached > "proof of concept". Let's hope, for the sake of the millions of people out > there who would like to participate, and not only for the lucky few of us > who are funded to attend physically, that in some years to come, technology > will allow us to participate fully from the four corners of our planet. > > Last but not least, I hope that there will be cross-linking of knowledge > and experience in this area, whether ISOC, IETF, IGF or ICANN... or any > other group for that matter. We, the privileged few, have a duty to work > overtime to promote this digital inclusion. Without it, we're just a déjà-vu > pot-pourri of "The usual suspects". > > Kindest regards, > > Olivier > > Le 25/09/2010 12:56, Ginger Paque a écrit : > > Remote participation at the IGF Vilnius 2010 raised the bar for remote > participation in international public policy meetings. Not in sheer volume, > although 600+ individuals is a good number, but in actual inclusion and > participation, with 33 registered remote hubs and dozens of remote > panelists, this IGF was indeed a global success. While there was > successful remote observation with excellent webcast, audiocast and > captioning, there was also the possibility of real remote *participation*for those who wanted to comment, ask questions and respond, with the same > privileges and priorities as those who attended in person. > > The next step will be to ensure that remote participants take advantage of > this possibility, and that remote moderators learn to transmit the interest > and personal power of the comments so that their impact is tangibly felt in > the meeting room. > > An interesting (unforeseen) development was chat exchanges between remote > hubs on the WebEx platform, as remote hubs gave feedback to presentations or > comments by other remote hubs. > > Pre-IGF preparations were better than ever, with strategy, planning, > training and information from the first 2010 OC in Geneva. > > I would like to thank the volunteer remote moderators from the panels, > DiploFoundation fellows and the ISOC ambassadors program for their > engagement and precious time and energy; the Lithuania host for their > support and their tech teams; the IGF Secretariat for their support and > follow-up, DiploFoundation for constant backup, and my fellow RPWG members > for their year-round worry, work and dynamic involvement. > > Thanks to all of the hub organizers for their work to include people from > all over the world in this meeting too. > > The RPWG will publish a report later this year. We look forward to your > comments and suggestions. > > Warm regards, > Ginger > -- > > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Sep 29 08:38:02 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 21:38:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <4C9DE370.9040108@gmail.com> <4CA1EAA8.20007@gih.com> Message-ID: 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 From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Sep 29 07:51:26 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:51:26 +0500 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> Message-ID: You should remove the results at this stage since they can create confusion. The stats should be released at the end of the election. On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Please don't answer YES to "Have you already voted in this election?" if, in > fact, you haven't done so.  Answering YES will prevent you from being > allowed to vote.  A couple of people have already been caught by this (after > verification of their error I deleted their original responses so they could > try again). > Another issue is that although you are presented with a link to the current > statistics of the poll in progress after you complete your answers, there is > no convenient way to get back to those statistics after you close your > browser window.  So to address this, here is a permanent link to the > statistics: > http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/statistics_user.php?action=statistics&sid=74518 > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > CI is 50 > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Sep 29 08:40:33 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:40:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: <4CA324A2.80701@itforchange.net> References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> <4CA324A2.80701@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 9/29/10, parminder wrote: > Paul, at this point the issue is not about one view against another, but > the letter of the charter of the IGC, which clearly has a different > eligibility criterion for voting in a charter amendment than any other > voting. It states that > > "In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous > election will be deemed a member for amending the charter." I understand that's the language. But in order to conclude that someone's vote is taken away, the language must be clear and unequivocal. Here, those who voted in the previous election are "deemed" members - it's automatic so to speak. There is no express preclusion of others who can establish membership through means not automatic in nature. Thank you Parminder for your courtesy and respect regarding me and the letter and spirit of the law. The letter and the spirit are why I interpret it in the manner above, one should greatly hesitate and put the burden of specificity on an interpretation that would result in the denial of a voting right. If a Charter intended for a more restricted class of Charter voters, it would typically (at least if well drafted) state at the end of the sentence above something like "and no others shall be deemed qualified voters by any means for the purpose of amending the Charter." -- 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 ca at cafonso.ca Wed Sep 29 08:49:45 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:49:45 -0300 Subject: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <4C9DE370.9040108@gmail.com> <4CA1EAA8.20007@gih.com> Message-ID: <4CA335E9.9070705@cafonso.ca> I second Adam on this. It was possible to remain in the main sessions while watching any of the workshops with excellent quality. One major problem I hope the logistics wizards consider seriously for the next IGF: several workshop rooms did not have any sound proofing. In some seats one could listen to one or more neighboring workshops, sometimes better than the one s/he was sitting on... Since remote access worked fine, many people moved to quieter places to listen and watch them -- but could not interact. --c.a. On 09/29/2010 09:38 AM, 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 -- 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 divina.meigs at orange.fr Wed Sep 29 08:52:00 2010 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:52:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <4CA32A3E.2090402@paque.net> Message-ID: Hello I confirm that you can see the stats only after the vote, and they don¹t mean much it seems to me as it is just one figure, without indication of trends or anything. If at all, it only entices the voter to encourage others to join the vote! Divina ^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^= Divina Frau-Meigs Professor, media sociology, University Sorbonne nouvelle, Paris (France) Director, master's programme AIGEME "E-learning and media education engineering" Director, research team CREW (EA 4399) Coordinator, i-lab "digital humanities", PRES Sorbonne Paris-Cité Board Member, ECREA (European Communication Research and Education Asso) Past vice-president, IAMCR (Intl Asso for Media and Communication Research) Head, "Media Education Research" Section, IAMCR website: www.medias-matrices.net ^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^= Le 29/09/10 13:59, « Ginger Paque » a écrit : > I visited the page Carlos. I agree that there is a possibility that someone > might be influenced in their vote if they see the current status of the votes. > However, it seems that you can only see the stats after you vote... so maybe > it isn't that important? > > On 9/29/2010 7:21 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Did anyone who are agreeing with Jean actually visit the stats page? >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 09/29/2010 04:46 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >> >>> Agreed with Jeanette. The statistics should not be made available before >>> completion of the process >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi Jeremy, >>>> >>>> I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator >>>> should be made publicly available before the completion of the >>>> election. It may affect the way people vote. >>>> jeanette >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29.09.2010 06:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> >>>>> Please don't answer YES to "Have you already voted in this election?" >>>>> if, in fact, you haven't done so. Answering YES will prevent you from >>>>> being allowed to vote. A couple of people have already been caught by >>>>> this (after verification of their error I deleted their original >>>>> responses so they could try again). >>>>> >>>>> Another issue is that although you are presented with a link to the >>>>> current statistics of the poll in progress after you complete your >>>>> answers, there is no convenient way to get back to those statistics >>>>> after you close your browser window. So to address this, here is a >>>>> permanent link to the statistics: >>>>> >>>>> http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/statistics_user.php?action=statistics&sid >>>>> =74518 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> d=74518> >>>>> >>>> d=74518> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> *Jeremy Malcolm >>>>> Project Coordinator* >>>>> Consumers International >>>>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>>>> Malaysia >>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>> >>>>> *CI is 50* >>>>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement >>>>> in 2010. >>>>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect >>>>> consumer rights around the world. >>>>> _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_ >>>>> >>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice >>>>> >>>> 1&int1stParentNodeID=89765> >>>>> >>>> 1&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 >>> >>> >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > 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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Wed Sep 29 08:53:22 2010 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:53:22 +0300 Subject: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 In-Reply-To: <4CA335E9.9070705@cafonso.ca> References: <4C9DE370.9040108@gmail.com> <4CA1EAA8.20007@gih.com> <4CA335E9.9070705@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <20100929125322.GO13256@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 09:49:45AM -0300, Carlos A. Afonso (ca at cafonso.ca) wrote: > One major problem I hope the logistics wizards consider seriously > for the next IGF: several workshop rooms did not have any sound > proofing. In some seats one could listen to one or more neighboring > workshops, sometimes better than the one s/he was sitting on... > Since remote access worked fine, many people moved to quieter places > to listen and watch them -- but could not interact. Yeah - though I noticed some people using earphones to listen the very workshop they were physically in! -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 29 08:58:41 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:58:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> <4CA324A2.80701@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51844480-3DDF-4E39-AC38-2ACA9BD44616@psg.com> Hi, Interesting point. Having just voted in an election, one could argue that the conditions of the charter had been met. Interesting cascade. And on the spirit, this happened so quickly, within the two month margin for voting on an election, we can be confident no one joined the mailing list to mess with the charter. So we might have both letter and spirit. a. On 29 Sep 2010, at 08:40, Paul Lehto wrote: > On 9/29/10, parminder wrote: >> Paul, at this point the issue is not about one view against another, but >> the letter of the charter of the IGC, which clearly has a different >> eligibility criterion for voting in a charter amendment than any other >> voting. It states that >> >> "In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous >> election will be deemed a member for amending the charter." > > I understand that's the language. But in order to conclude that > someone's vote is taken away, the language must be clear and > unequivocal. Here, those who voted in the previous election are > "deemed" members - it's automatic so to speak. There is no express > preclusion of others who can establish membership through means not > automatic in nature. > > Thank you Parminder for your courtesy and respect regarding me and the > letter and spirit of the law. The letter and the spirit are why I > interpret it in the manner above, one should greatly hesitate and put > the burden of specificity on an interpretation that would result in > the denial of a voting right. If a Charter intended for a more > restricted class of Charter voters, it would typically (at least if > well drafted) state at the end of the sentence above something like > "and no others shall be deemed qualified voters by any means for the > purpose of amending the Charter." > > -- > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk Wed Sep 29 09:03:43 2010 From: tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk (Tim Davies) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:03:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Remote participation at Vilnius IGF 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <4C9DE370.9040108@gmail.com> <4CA1EAA8.20007@gih.com> Message-ID: 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 29 09:28:16 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:58:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: <51844480-3DDF-4E39-AC38-2ACA9BD44616@psg.com> References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> <4CA324A2.80701@itforchange.net> <51844480-3DDF-4E39-AC38-2ACA9BD44616@psg.com> Message-ID: <4CA33EF0.90902@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 29 September 2010 06:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Interesting point. > > Having just voted in an election, one could argue that the conditions of the charter had been met. Interesting cascade. > > And on the spirit, this happened so quickly, within the two month margin for voting on an election, we can be confident no one joined the mailing list to mess with the charter. > > So we might have both letter and spirit. > Avri The letter of the corresponding text of the charter, in my view, is about an eligible voter for a charter amendment actually having voted in the last election, which I read as something which is meant to be prior to starting the process of charter amendment, and not an ongoing, un-concluded voting process, in which the voter participates a few seconds prior to her/his charter amendment vote. That simply makes no sense, and I would say is a rather cynical way of reading such an important document as the IGC's charter. And the spirit of the referred text is that when one votes for a charter amendment one may not decide just on instinct (or with malafide intention as part of a capture process) to be a part of the group's core self-defining process, but has some sustained involvement with the processes of the group which gives her/ him a right to be part of such collective self-definition and determination (and, on the other hand, stands as some degree of check against an orchestrated capture process). In the present case, if one was already subscribed to the list for 2 months, she/he could have chosen to participate in charter amendment without having had, independently (and this is the key point), participated in an earlier election, which is the intent of the charter. One may just do the coordinator vote, because that is the technical necessity to go to the charter amendment vote, with ones principal intent focused on charter amendment vote . The charter's express and specific requirement of previous commitment and involvement for casting a charter amendment vote is obviously not met in this case. This particular amendment is for a minor issue, so it really doesnt matter that much either way. However, we have to be clear about protecting our Charter's voting processes, especially charter amendment voting processes. A bad precedent allowed to pass becomes the law. Parminder > a. > > > On 29 Sep 2010, at 08:40, Paul Lehto wrote: > > >> On 9/29/10, parminder wrote: >> >>> Paul, at this point the issue is not about one view against another, but >>> the letter of the charter of the IGC, which clearly has a different >>> eligibility criterion for voting in a charter amendment than any other >>> voting. It states that >>> >>> "In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous >>> election will be deemed a member for amending the charter." >>> >> I understand that's the language. But in order to conclude that >> someone's vote is taken away, the language must be clear and >> unequivocal. Here, those who voted in the previous election are >> "deemed" members - it's automatic so to speak. There is no express >> preclusion of others who can establish membership through means not >> automatic in nature. >> >> Thank you Parminder for your courtesy and respect regarding me and the >> letter and spirit of the law. The letter and the spirit are why I >> interpret it in the manner above, one should greatly hesitate and put >> the burden of specificity on an interpretation that would result in >> the denial of a voting right. If a Charter intended for a more >> restricted class of Charter voters, it would typically (at least if >> well drafted) state at the end of the sentence above something like >> "and no others shall be deemed qualified voters by any means for the >> purpose of amending the Charter." >> >> -- >> 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 >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Sep 29 09:32:10 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:02:10 -0430 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: <51844480-3DDF-4E39-AC38-2ACA9BD44616@psg.com> References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> <4CA324A2.80701@itforchange.net> <51844480-3DDF-4E39-AC38-2ACA9BD44616@psg.com> Message-ID: <4CA33FDA.5000701@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 jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Sep 29 09:36:35 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:36:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <4CA32D66.7010100@cafonso.ca> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> <90D516C7-C95D-410C-9764-C1E26521330E@bytesforall.net> <4CA32851.9080707@cafonso.ca> <006e01cb5fcd$90424e30$b0c6ea90$@souter@runbox.com> <4CA32D66.7010100@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4CA340E3.9060907@wzb.eu> Carlos, Jeremy changed the stats after several people said he should. You accessed the stats _after_ Jeremy changed them. jeanette On 29.09.2010 13:13, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Uh-oh, OK, when I voted it did not. Then no need to change now, right? > > --c.a. > > On 09/29/2010 08:57 AM, David Souter wrote: >> Yes, I did. It did, at the time I visited, give a breakdown of the number >> of votes cast for each candidate up to that point in time. >> >> 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) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] >> Sent: 29 September 2010 12:52 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Shahzad Ahmad >> Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; Jeremy Malcolm >> Subject: Re: [governance] Tips about the election process >> >> Did anyone who are agreeing with Jean actually visit the stats page? >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 09/29/2010 04:46 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>> Agreed with Jeanette. The statistics should not be made available before >>> completion of the process >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Jeremy, >>>> >>>> I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator >>>> should be made publicly available before the completion of the >>>> election. It may affect the way people vote. >>>> jeanette >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29.09.2010 06:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>> Please don't answer YES to "Have you already voted in this election?" >>>>> if, in fact, you haven't done so. Answering YES will prevent you from >>>>> being allowed to vote. A couple of people have already been caught by >>>>> this (after verification of their error I deleted their original >>>>> responses so they could try again). >>>>> >>>>> Another issue is that although you are presented with a link to the >>>>> current statistics of the poll in progress after you complete your >>>>> answers, there is no convenient way to get back to those statistics >>>>> after you close your browser window. So to address this, here is a >>>>> permanent link to the statistics: >>>>> >>>>> >> http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/statistics_user.php?action=statistics&sid=7 >> >> 4518 >>>>> >>>>> >> > >> 74518> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> *Jeremy Malcolm >>>>> Project Coordinator* >>>>> Consumers International >>>>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>>>> Malaysia >>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>> >>>>> *CI is 50* >>>>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement >>>>> in 2010. >>>>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect >>>>> consumer rights around the world. >>>>> _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_ >>>>> >>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice >>>>> >> > >> 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 >>> >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Sep 29 09:37:26 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:37:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: <51844480-3DDF-4E39-AC38-2ACA9BD44616@psg.com> References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> <4CA324A2.80701@itforchange.net> <51844480-3DDF-4E39-AC38-2ACA9BD44616@psg.com> Message-ID: Anyway, this whole voting exercise has been troubling to me. I thought there was going to be time to discuss the charter amendment. I remember Avri's post clarifying the fact that even if 10 have seconded the amendment proposal, discussion is welcome if not required as long as an issue has been raised. Jeremy confirmed that of course discussion may continue and that he was only addressing, in his previous email, the 10-threshold support for the amendment proposal to move ahead. Then how much time had elapsed since that day before the voting was open? Yet parminder raised issue with using the same nomcom for several purposes, suggesting instead we could use the same pool of volunteers to constitute several nomcoms if under time constraint. I thought that suggestion was worth considering and discussing, and said so. I was surprised how fast the opening of the vote came after that without any further consideration. I find there're now too many questions about this vote, or bundle of votes, and that it should be declared void and closed. Thanks, Mawaki On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Interesting point. > > Having just voted in an election, one could argue that the conditions of > the charter had been met. Interesting cascade. > > And on the spirit, this happened so quickly, within the two month margin > for voting on an election, we can be confident no one joined the mailing > list to mess with the charter. > > So we might have both letter and spirit. > > a. > > > On 29 Sep 2010, at 08:40, Paul Lehto wrote: > > > On 9/29/10, parminder wrote: > >> Paul, at this point the issue is not about one view against another, but > >> the letter of the charter of the IGC, which clearly has a different > >> eligibility criterion for voting in a charter amendment than any other > >> voting. It states that > >> > >> "In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous > >> election will be deemed a member for amending the charter." > > > > I understand that's the language. But in order to conclude that > > someone's vote is taken away, the language must be clear and > > unequivocal. Here, those who voted in the previous election are > > "deemed" members - it's automatic so to speak. There is no express > > preclusion of others who can establish membership through means not > > automatic in nature. > > > > Thank you Parminder for your courtesy and respect regarding me and the > > letter and spirit of the law. The letter and the spirit are why I > > interpret it in the manner above, one should greatly hesitate and put > > the burden of specificity on an interpretation that would result in > > the denial of a voting right. If a Charter intended for a more > > restricted class of Charter voters, it would typically (at least if > > well drafted) state at the end of the sentence above something like > > "and no others shall be deemed qualified voters by any means for the > > purpose of amending the Charter." > > > > -- > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Sep 29 10:06:03 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 11:06:03 -0300 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <4CA340E3.9060907@wzb.eu> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> <90D516C7-C95D-410C-9764-C1E26521330E@bytesforall.net> <4CA32851.9080707@cafonso.ca> <006e01cb5fcd$90424e30$b0c6ea90$@souter@runbox.com> <4CA32D66.7010100@cafonso.ca> <4CA340E3.9060907@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4CA347CB.9030200@cafonso.ca> Yes, Jean, I have had my ears pulled by several people already on this... Had no idea the first voters could see everything. --c.a. On 09/29/2010 10:36 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Carlos, Jeremy changed the stats after several people said he should. > You accessed the stats _after_ Jeremy changed them. > > jeanette > > On 29.09.2010 13:13, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Uh-oh, OK, when I voted it did not. Then no need to change now, right? >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 09/29/2010 08:57 AM, David Souter wrote: >>> Yes, I did. It did, at the time I visited, give a breakdown of the >>> number >>> of votes cast for each candidate up to that point in time. >>> >>> 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) >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] >>> Sent: 29 September 2010 12:52 >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Shahzad Ahmad >>> Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; Jeremy Malcolm >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Tips about the election process >>> >>> Did anyone who are agreeing with Jean actually visit the stats page? >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 09/29/2010 04:46 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>>> Agreed with Jeanette. The statistics should not be made available >>>> before >>>> completion of the process >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Jeremy, >>>>> >>>>> I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator >>>>> should be made publicly available before the completion of the >>>>> election. It may affect the way people vote. >>>>> jeanette >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 29.09.2010 06:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> Please don't answer YES to "Have you already voted in this election?" >>>>>> if, in fact, you haven't done so. Answering YES will prevent you from >>>>>> being allowed to vote. A couple of people have already been caught by >>>>>> this (after verification of their error I deleted their original >>>>>> responses so they could try again). >>>>>> >>>>>> Another issue is that although you are presented with a link to the >>>>>> current statistics of the poll in progress after you complete your >>>>>> answers, there is no convenient way to get back to those statistics >>>>>> after you close your browser window. So to address this, here is a >>>>>> permanent link to the statistics: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/statistics_user.php?action=statistics&sid=7 >>> >>> >>> 4518 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >> >>> >>> 74518> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> *Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>> Project Coordinator* >>>>>> Consumers International >>>>>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >>>>>> Lumpur, >>>>>> Malaysia >>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>>> >>>>>> *CI is 50* >>>>>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer >>>>>> movement >>>>>> in 2010. >>>>>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect >>>>>> consumer rights around the world. >>>>>> _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_ >>>>>> >>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice >>>>>> >>> >> >>> >>> 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 >>>> >>> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 avri at psg.com Wed Sep 29 10:35:36 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:35:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: <4CA33EF0.90902@itforchange.net> References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> <4CA324A2.80701@itforchange.net> <51844480-3DDF-4E39-AC38-2ACA9BD44616@psg.com> <4CA33EF0.90902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi, I agree that it could be considered cynical, though i did not mean it cynically. And I agree that it hinges on interpretations, especially of "most currently available voters list" and "everyone who voted in the previous election". And that it is a close call. I find myself wavering on this and seeing 2 sides, maybe too much coffee now. Parminder is right is that we might be opening a gaming hole. E.g next year 3 months before the election, a bunch of people could join the list in time for coordinator voting rights, with the real intent of presenting a charter amendment. Would this serve as a precedent that this was ok. I am so glad that we have an appeals mechanism whereby if enough people (5) think that the current process is wrong, it can be put to review. Also, I must admit, as a process geek, to being fascinated by us have a problem of a race condition* in the charter. I see them in computer sceince all the time, but this is my first experience of one in a charter and has taught me stuff. a. *Race condition: Race conditions arise in software when separate processes or threads of execution depend on some shared state. Operations upon shared states are critical sections that must be mutually exclusive in order to avoid harmful collision between processes or threads that share those states. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_condition) On 29 Sep 2010, at 09:28, parminder wrote: > > > On Wednesday 29 September 2010 06:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Interesting point. >> >> Having just voted in an election, one could argue that the conditions of the charter had been met. Interesting cascade. >> >> And on the spirit, this happened so quickly, within the two month margin for voting on an election, we can be confident no one joined the mailing list to mess with the charter. >> >> So we might have both letter and spirit. >> >> > > Avri > > The letter of the corresponding text of the charter, in my view, is about an eligible voter for a charter amendment actually having voted in the last election, which I read as something which is meant to be prior to starting the process of charter amendment, and not an ongoing, un-concluded voting process, in which the voter participates a few seconds prior to her/his charter amendment vote. That simply makes no sense, and I would say is a rather cynical way of reading such an important document as the IGC's charter. > > And the spirit of the referred text is that when one votes for a charter amendment one may not decide just on instinct (or with malafide intention as part of a capture process) to be a part of the group's core self-defining process, but has some sustained involvement with the processes of the group which gives her/ him a right to be part of such collective self-definition and determination (and, on the other hand, stands as some degree of check against an orchestrated capture process). > > In the present case, if one was already subscribed to the list for 2 months, she/he could have chosen to participate in charter amendment without having had, independently (and this is the key point), participated in an earlier election, which is the intent of the charter. One may just do the coordinator vote, because that is the technical necessity to go to the charter amendment vote, with ones principal intent focused on charter amendment vote . The charter's express and specific requirement of previous commitment and involvement for casting a charter amendment vote is obviously not met in this case. > > This particular amendment is for a minor issue, so it really doesnt matter that much either way. However, we have to be clear about protecting our Charter's voting processes, especially charter amendment voting processes. A bad precedent allowed to pass becomes the law. > > > Parminder >> a. >> >> >> On 29 Sep 2010, at 08:40, Paul Lehto wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 9/29/10, parminder >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Paul, at this point the issue is not about one view against another, but >>>> the letter of the charter of the IGC, which clearly has a different >>>> eligibility criterion for voting in a charter amendment than any other >>>> voting. It states that >>>> >>>> "In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous >>>> election will be deemed a member for amending the charter." >>>> >>>> >>> I understand that's the language. But in order to conclude that >>> someone's vote is taken away, the language must be clear and >>> unequivocal. Here, those who voted in the previous election are >>> "deemed" members - it's automatic so to speak. There is no express >>> preclusion of others who can establish membership through means not >>> automatic in nature. >>> >>> Thank you Parminder for your courtesy and respect regarding me and the >>> letter and spirit of the law. The letter and the spirit are why I >>> interpret it in the manner above, one should greatly hesitate and put >>> the burden of specificity on an interpretation that would result in >>> the denial of a voting right. If a Charter intended for a more >>> restricted class of Charter voters, it would typically (at least if >>> well drafted) state at the end of the sentence above something like >>> "and no others shall be deemed qualified voters by any means for the >>> purpose of amending the Charter." >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 29 10:59:54 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:59:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: <4CA324A2.80701@itforchange.net> References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> ,<4CA324A2.80701@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01978B0EC8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> My 3 cents: 1: I'm with Parminder on being careful with charter amendmentsto preserve the anti-capture mechanisms put in place earlier; since while it may not be the case now real issues have arisen in past and may in future. 2: And as for hurting/disenfranchising innocents by following 1) - all you need to do is hang on the list a bit longer and continue to affirm charter, and we've captured you; so I don't see it as a problem. 3: Changing rules/procedures once a vote has begun....I agree that doesn't look good for an internet governance caucus. But I defer to others on how to resolve Avri's teachable moment. Lee ________________________________________ From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 7:36 AM To: Paul Lehto Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Criterion for charter voting On Wednesday 29 September 2010 04:54 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: The problem with the interpretation to "avoid capture" of only allowing charter votes from those who voted in the last election is that it greatly facilitates a different kind of capture: Paul, at this point the issue is not about one view against another, but the letter of the charter of the IGC, which clearly has a different eligibility criterion for voting in a charter amendment than any other voting. It states that "In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter." Pl see http://www.igcaucus.org/charter . I know you are a great upholder of letter and spirit of the 'law' and will see the point in this perspective. Parminder One may monitor those who voted in the last election and, when that mix is favorable, ram through the charter amendment based on this subset of the total electorate. And then another amendment could be passed, based on the same consideration of not having voted in the last election. Perhaps this could be called "super-capture." I've written before that a proper interpretation, at least in my view, of the Charter would result in a fair and democratic voting method, but it hasn't been interpreted consistently that way in the past. The odd thing is that I am valuable enough to at least be asked about the Charter, and yet after missing one election I have never been qualified or registered to vote at any time in the year or two I've been on the list. Perhaps I am now, but it's hard for me to know because some of the procedures are, to me, democratically counter-intuitive. Paul Lehto, J.D. On 9/29/10, parminder wrote: Dear All This is to draw you attention to an important matter. The voting eligibility for charter amendment and for any other voting, including for electing a coordinator is very different. While for the latter, anyone who has been on the list for two months and affirms membership through declaring commitment to the charter can vote, for a charter amendment only those who have voted for the last election/ voting can vote. This special condition has been put for voting on any charter amendment to avoid capture, since charter amendment is quite a serious matter, since through any such amendment the very nature of and procedures adopted by the caucus can be changed. When I read that voting for charter amendment and for electing a new coordinator will take place at the same time, I brought the above issue to the attention of the co-coordinator in-charge of the voting/election, Jeremy, and requested that since there are different voting eligibility conditions for the two proposed voting, holding them together will cause confusion and should therefore be avoided. I preferred that charter amendment be held separately before the coordinator election, with the voter list consisting of all those who had voted for the last election, as is expressly required by the charter. Jeremy replied that he is going to overcome this problem simply by having a single process whereby the coordinator voting immediately precedes the charter amendment vote, and it will 'technically' be ensured that only those who vote for coordinator election will be able to vote for the charter amendment, which in his view would meet the special voting eligibility requirement for a charter amendment vote. I responded that though technically it may meet the requirement, which too I doubt, it does not observe the intent of the charter in spirit, since the special condition of more strict eligibility conditions for voting for charter amendment has been put there with a clear purpose of avoiding capture. It is for this reason that the charter seeks to put some clear time and space between the participation of anyone in a vote for charter amendment and her/ his affirmation of IGC membership through participation in an earlier election, when, presumably, he/ she would have no idea of a possible participation in a charter amendment vote. The present process, whereby any voting can be held immediately preceding, but as a part of the same process of, a charter amendment vote almost looks like writing a plan on how to subvert the charter requirement of more stringent voting criteria for charter amendment. Even though the present exercise may be well-intentioned, the fact that it opens up a dangerous future possibility bother me a lot. I therefore consider the present voting process as not proper, and propose a discussion on this issue. Parminder On Wednesday 29 September 2010 10:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: You should just have received a personal email inviting you to cast your vote for the next co-coordinator of the IGC. After you confirm your eligibility and cast your vote, you will also become eligible to vote on the recently-discussed charter amendment. If you did not receive your personal invitation email, please first check your junk email folder, and if you still do not have it, let me know. The draft form of the coordinator ballot and charter poll has been approved by Ginger also, but I will take primary responsibility for any disputes that people may wish to raise about the process adopted. The 2009 appeals team (Jeanette Hofmann, Adam Peake, Carlos Alfonso, Ken Lohento and Fouad Bajwa), who have not yet been replaced for 2010, are (I hope) also available to hear any disagreements. Following the informal procedure adopted in previous years (the charter is, surprisingly, silent), the election ballot and charter poll will be open for 10 days from now, which ends on 9 September 2010, "rounded up" until midnight that night. The last subscriber who is eligible to affirm IGC membership is Alan Greenberg, who subscribed on 23 July 2010. The first subscriber who missed out on that opportunity is Giorgio Simeoli who subscribed on 10 August. One subscriber, emisa+ig at gmail.com has an email address that is not technically capable of receiving a personalised invitation -- *Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 *CI is 50* Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 fm-lists at st-kilda.org Wed Sep 29 11:17:07 2010 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:17:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: <4CA33FDA.5000701@paque.net> References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> <4CA324A2.80701@itforchange.net> <51844480-3DDF-4E39-AC38-2ACA9BD44616@psg.com> <4CA33FDA.5000701@paque.net> Message-ID: But the election has not completed so for new voters you haven't voted in the last election, only the current running one. The whole election process was meant to be reviewed but it didn't seem to make it to the top of our todo lists. I think it does need to be revisited soon both for some version of Proportional Representation and procedural tightening up. f On 29 Sep 2010, at 14:32, Ginger Paque wrote: > I don't know if I should weigh in, being co-coordinator, but not running the election, but this is exactly what I think: first I voted in the election, then I voted on the charter. > > On 9/29/2010 8:28 AM, Avri Doria 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 gpaque at gmail.com Wed Sep 29 11:56:17 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 11:26:17 -0430 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting (Adam's proposal) In-Reply-To: References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F5D.3060402@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4CA361A1.6030504@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 tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Wed Sep 29 12:29:53 2010 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:29:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <4CA347CB.9030200@cafonso.ca> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> <90D516C7-C95D-410C-9764-C1E26521330E@bytesforall.net> <4CA32851.9080707@cafonso.ca> <006e01cb5fcd$90424e30$b0c6ea90$@souter@runbox.com> <4CA32D66.7010100@cafonso.ca> <4CA340E3.9060907@wzb.eu> <4CA347CB.9030200@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <19E7C73AA806468EA6EE3D68AA678053@MTBJ> I was one of the first voters, and I can tell u that neither the stat at the end of the survey, nor the link Jeremy gave show the full voting result. They only give the total number of voters. I don't know why Jeremy doesn't explain what was shown. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 : Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] Envoyé : mercredi 29 septembre 2010 15:06 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org Objet : Re: [governance] Tips about the election process Yes, Jean, I have had my ears pulled by several people already on this... Had no idea the first voters could see everything. --c.a. On 09/29/2010 10:36 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Carlos, Jeremy changed the stats after several people said he should. > You accessed the stats _after_ Jeremy changed them. > > jeanette > > On 29.09.2010 13:13, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Uh-oh, OK, when I voted it did not. Then no need to change now, right? >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 09/29/2010 08:57 AM, David Souter wrote: >>> Yes, I did. It did, at the time I visited, give a breakdown of the >>> number >>> of votes cast for each candidate up to that point in time. >>> >>> 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) >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] >>> Sent: 29 September 2010 12:52 >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Shahzad Ahmad >>> Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; Jeremy Malcolm >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Tips about the election process >>> >>> Did anyone who are agreeing with Jean actually visit the stats page? >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 09/29/2010 04:46 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>>> Agreed with Jeanette. The statistics should not be made available >>>> before >>>> completion of the process >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Jeremy, >>>>> >>>>> I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator >>>>> should be made publicly available before the completion of the >>>>> election. It may affect the way people vote. >>>>> jeanette >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 29.09.2010 06:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> Please don't answer YES to "Have you already voted in this election?" >>>>>> if, in fact, you haven't done so. Answering YES will prevent you from >>>>>> being allowed to vote. A couple of people have already been caught by >>>>>> this (after verification of their error I deleted their original >>>>>> responses so they could try again). >>>>>> >>>>>> Another issue is that although you are presented with a link to the >>>>>> current statistics of the poll in progress after you complete your >>>>>> answers, there is no convenient way to get back to those statistics >>>>>> after you close your browser window. So to address this, here is a >>>>>> permanent link to the statistics: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/statistics_user.php?action=statistics&sid=7 >>> >>> >>> 4518 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >> >>> >>> 74518> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> *Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>> Project Coordinator* >>>>>> Consumers International >>>>>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >>>>>> Lumpur, >>>>>> Malaysia >>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>>> >>>>>> *CI is 50* >>>>>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer >>>>>> movement >>>>>> in 2010. >>>>>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect >>>>>> consumer rights around the world. >>>>>> _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_ >>>>>> >>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice >>>>>> >>> >> >>> >>> 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 >>>> >>> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Sep 29 12:49:49 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 01:49:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <19E7C73AA806468EA6EE3D68AA678053@MTBJ> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> <90D516C7-C95D-410C-9764-C1E26521330E@bytesforall.net> <4CA32851.9080707@cafonso.ca> <4CA32D66.7010100@cafonso.ca> <4CA340E3.9060907@wzb.eu> <4CA347CB.9030200@cafonso.ca> <19E7C73AA806468EA6EE3D68AA678053@MTBJ> Message-ID: The statistics showed the number of votes for each candidate. And that's the concern. There are two coordinators and three candidates. If I saw my first choice way out in front, I might switch my single vote to my second choice, etc. Adam On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > I was one of the first voters, and I can tell u that neither the stat at the > end of the survey, nor the link Jeremy gave show the full voting result. > They only give the total number of voters. > > > > I don't know why Jeremy doesn't explain what was shown. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 : Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] > Envoyé : mercredi 29 septembre 2010 15:06 > À : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Objet : Re: [governance] Tips about the election process > > > > Yes, Jean, I have had my ears pulled by several people already on > > this... Had no idea the first voters could see everything. > > > > --c.a. > > > > On 09/29/2010 10:36 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> Carlos, Jeremy changed the stats after several people said he should. > >> You accessed the stats _after_ Jeremy changed them. > >> > >> jeanette > >> > >> On 29.09.2010 13:13, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >>> Uh-oh, OK, when I voted it did not. Then no need to change now, right? > >>> > >>> --c.a. > >>> > >>> On 09/29/2010 08:57 AM, David Souter wrote: > >>>> Yes, I did. It did, at the time I visited, give a breakdown of the > >>>> number > >>>> of votes cast for each candidate up to that point in time. > >>>> > >>>> 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) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] > >>>> Sent: 29 September 2010 12:52 > >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Shahzad Ahmad > >>>> Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; Jeremy Malcolm > >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Tips about the election process > >>>> > >>>> Did anyone who are agreeing with Jean actually visit the stats page? > >>>> > >>>> --c.a. > >>>> > >>>> On 09/29/2010 04:46 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > >>>>> Agreed with Jeanette. The statistics should not be made available > >>>>> before > >>>>> completion of the process > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Jeremy, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator > >>>>>> should be made publicly available before the completion of the > >>>>>> election. It may affect the way people vote. > >>>>>> jeanette > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 29.09.2010 06:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>>>>>> Please don't answer YES to "Have you already voted in this election?" > >>>>>>> if, in fact, you haven't done so. Answering YES will prevent you from > >>>>>>> being allowed to vote. A couple of people have already been caught by > >>>>>>> this (after verification of their error I deleted their original > >>>>>>> responses so they could try again). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Another issue is that although you are presented with a link to the > >>>>>>> current statistics of the poll in progress after you complete your > >>>>>>> answers, there is no convenient way to get back to those statistics > >>>>>>> after you close your browser window. So to address this, here is a > >>>>>>> permanent link to the statistics: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/statistics_user.php?action=statistics&sid=7 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 4518 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 74518> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> *Jeremy Malcolm > >>>>>>> Project Coordinator* > >>>>>>> Consumers International > >>>>>>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > >>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala > >>>>>>> Lumpur, > >>>>>>> Malaysia > >>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> *CI is 50* > >>>>>>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer > >>>>>>> movement > >>>>>>> in 2010. > >>>>>>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect > >>>>>>> consumer rights around the world. > >>>>>>> _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice > >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 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 > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Sep 29 12:53:17 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 01:53:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> <90D516C7-C95D-410C-9764-C1E26521330E@bytesforall.net> <4CA32851.9080707@cafonso.ca> <4CA32D66.7010100@cafonso.ca> <4CA340E3.9060907@wzb.eu> <4CA347CB.9030200@cafonso.ca> <19E7C73AA806468EA6EE3D68AA678053@MTBJ> Message-ID: Apologies if my reply was a little abrupt/rude (brusque?). Late, I should sleep :-) Thanks, Adam On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:49 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > The statistics showed the number of votes for each candidate. And > that's the concern. > > There are two coordinators and three candidates. If I saw my first > choice way out in front,  I might switch my single vote to my second > choice, etc. > > Adam > > > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA > wrote: >> I was one of the first voters, and I can tell u that neither the stat at the >> end of the survey, nor the link Jeremy gave show the full voting result. >> They only give the total number of voters. >> >> >> >> I don't know why Jeremy doesn't explain what was shown. >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> 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 : Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] >> Envoyé : mercredi 29 septembre 2010 15:06 >> À : governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Objet : Re: [governance] Tips about the election process >> >> >> >> Yes, Jean, I have had my ears pulled by several people already on >> >> this... Had no idea the first voters could see everything. >> >> >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> >> On 09/29/2010 10:36 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >>> Carlos, Jeremy changed the stats after several people said he should. >> >>> You accessed the stats _after_ Jeremy changed them. >> >>> >> >>> jeanette >> >>> >> >>> On 29.09.2010 13:13, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>>> Uh-oh, OK, when I voted it did not. Then no need to change now, right? >> >>>> >> >>>> --c.a. >> >>>> >> >>>> On 09/29/2010 08:57 AM, David Souter wrote: >> >>>>> Yes, I did. It did, at the time I visited, give a breakdown of the >> >>>>> number >> >>>>> of votes cast for each candidate up to that point in time. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 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) >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>>> From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] >> >>>>> Sent: 29 September 2010 12:52 >> >>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Shahzad Ahmad >> >>>>> Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; Jeremy Malcolm >> >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Tips about the election process >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Did anyone who are agreeing with Jean actually visit the stats page? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> --c.a. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On 09/29/2010 04:46 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >> >>>>>> Agreed with Jeanette. The statistics should not be made available >> >>>>>> before >> >>>>>> completion of the process >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hi Jeremy, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator >> >>>>>>> should be made publicly available before the completion of the >> >>>>>>> election. It may affect the way people vote. >> >>>>>>> jeanette >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On 29.09.2010 06:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>>>>>>> Please don't answer YES to "Have you already voted in this election?" >> >>>>>>>> if, in fact, you haven't done so. Answering YES will prevent you from >> >>>>>>>> being allowed to vote. A couple of people have already been caught by >> >>>>>>>> this (after verification of their error I deleted their original >> >>>>>>>> responses so they could try again). >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Another issue is that although you are presented with a link to the >> >>>>>>>> current statistics of the poll in progress after you complete your >> >>>>>>>> answers, there is no convenient way to get back to those statistics >> >>>>>>>> after you close your browser window. So to address this, here is a >> >>>>>>>> permanent link to the statistics: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>> http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/statistics_user.php?action=statistics&sid=7 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 4518 >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 74518> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> *Jeremy Malcolm >> >>>>>>>> Project Coordinator* >> >>>>>>>> Consumers International >> >>>>>>>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >> >>>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >> >>>>>>>> Lumpur, >> >>>>>>>> Malaysia >> >>>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> *CI is 50* >> >>>>>>>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer >> >>>>>>>> movement >> >>>>>>>> in 2010. >> >>>>>>>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect >> >>>>>>>> consumer rights around the world. >> >>>>>>>> _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_ >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 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 >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 29 12:57:15 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 01:57:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> <4CA324A2.80701@itforchange.net> <51844480-3DDF-4E39-AC38-2ACA9BD44616@psg.com> <4CA33FDA.5000701@paque.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder and all, Thank you for raising this important issue and providing inputs. Though I have my own opinion, being a candidate for a co-coordinator, I like to refrain from putting them here now, and like to follow whatever outcome we reach. I am afraid that my saying something on charter amendment may affect on the co-coordinator election or vice versa in an inappropriate manner. This might be the case of "Race condition"Avri put. Thank you for your understanding and continuing efforts, izumi 2010/9/30 Fearghas McKay : > But the election has not completed so for new voters you haven't voted in > the last election, only the current running one. > > The whole election process was meant to be reviewed but it didn't seem to > make it to the top of our todo lists. I think it does need to be revisited > soon both for some version of Proportional Representation and procedural > tightening up. >     f > > On 29 Sep 2010, at 14:32, Ginger Paque wrote: > > I don't know if I should weigh in, being co-coordinator, but not running the > election, but this is exactly what I think: first I voted in the election, > then I voted on the charter. > > On 9/29/2010 8:28 AM, Avri Doria 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 > --                         >> 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 tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Wed Sep 29 12:57:04 2010 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:57:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting (Adam's proposal) In-Reply-To: <4CA361A1.6030504@gmail.com> References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F5D.3060402@itforchange.net> <4CA361A1.6030504@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5C8CBF91B36D45368CA77DE5EE5BE564@MTBJ> Thank you Ginger, Jeremy is working hard for those successive elections and try to find the best solutions. If there is a big issue for the charter modification, 2 solutions were proposed: find an automatic way to sort out the voters that didn’t vote for the last election, or organize a new voting process for the charter modification. I do think that we need to be positive and to thank Jeremy for his efforts. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 : Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 29 septembre 2010 16:56 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake Objet : Re: [governance] Criterion for charter voting (Adam's proposal) Could this be done smoothly? OR if there is consensus, can we agree to validate only the co-coordinator election vote at this time, and then hold the charter vote after that process is complete? 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. On 9/29/2010 6:54 AM, Adam Peake wrote: Perhaps it will be possible to split the voters by the qualifications Parminder mentions? That is, after the vote is complete, anyone who did not vote in the last election has their vote on the charter amendment voided. And their vote on the coordinator positions would remain. That would leave the correct voter pool, right? Jeremy could a process like this be completed automatically? Adam At 4:43 PM +0530 9/29/10, parminder wrote: Dear All This is to draw your attention to an important matter. The voting eligibility for charter amendment and for any other voting, including for electing a coordinator is very different. While for the latter, anyone who has been on the list for two months and affirms membership through declaring commitment to the charter can vote, for a charter amendment only those who have voted for the last election/ voting can vote. This special condition has been put for voting on any charter amendment to avoid capture, since charter amendment is quite a serious matter, since through any such amendment the very nature of and procedures adopted by the caucus can be changed. When I read that voting for charter amendment and for electing a new coordinator will take place at the same time, I brought the above issue to the attention of the co-coordinator in-charge of the voting/election, Jeremy, and requested that since there are different voting eligibility conditions for the two proposed voting, holding them together will cause confusion and should therefore be avoided. I preferred that charter amendment be held separately before the coordinator election, with the voter list consisting of all those who had voted for the last election, as is expressly required by the charter. Jeremy replied that he is going to overcome this problem simply by having a single process whereby the coordinator voting immediately precedes the charter amendment vote, and it will 'technically' be ensured that only those who vote for coordinator election will be able to vote for the charter amendment, which in his view would meet the special voting eligibility requirement for a charter amendment vote. I responded that though technically it may meet the requirement, which too I doubt, it does not observe the intent of the charter in spirit, since the special condition of more strict eligibility conditions for voting for charter amendment has been put there with a clear purpose of avoiding capture. It is for this reason that the charter seeks to put some clear time and space between the participation of anyone in a vote for charter amendment and her/ his affirmation of IGC membership through participation in an earlier election, when, presumably, he/ she would have no idea of a possible participation in a charter amendment vote. The present process, whereby any voting can be held immediately preceding, but as a part of the same process of, a charter amendment vote almost looks like writing a plan on how to subvert the charter requirement of more stringent voting criteria for charter amendment. Even though the present exercise may be well-intentioned, the fact that it opens up a dangerous future possibility bother me a lot. I therefore consider the present voting process as not proper, and propose a discussion on this issue. Parminder On Wednesday 29 September 2010 10:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: You should just have received a personal email inviting you to cast your vote for the next co-coordinator of the IGC. After you confirm your eligibility and cast your vote, you will also become eligible to vote on the recently-discussed charter amendment. If you did not receive your personal invitation email, please first check your junk email folder, and if you still do not have it, let me know. The draft form of the coordinator ballot and charter poll has been approved by Ginger also, but I will take primary responsibility for any disputes that people may wish to raise about the process adopted. The 2009 appeals team (Jeanette Hofmann, Adam Peake, Carlos Alfonso, Ken Lohento and Fouad Bajwa), who have not yet been replaced for 2010, are (I hope) also available to hear any disagreements. Following the informal procedure adopted in previous years (the charter is, surprisingly, silent), the election ballot and charter poll will be open for 10 days from now, which ends on 9 September 2010, "rounded up" until midnight that night. The last subscriber who is eligible to affirm IGC membership is Alan Greenberg, who subscribed on 23 July 2010. The first subscriber who missed out on that opportunity is Giorgio Simeoli who subscribed on 10 August. One subscriber, emisa+ig at gmail.com has an email address that is not technically capable of receiving a personalised invitation -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational. org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Wed Sep 29 13:08:48 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:08:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> <90D516C7-C95D-410C-9764-C1E26521330E@bytesforall.net> <4CA32851.9080707@cafonso.ca> <4CA32D66.7010100@cafonso.ca> <4CA340E3.9060907@wzb.eu> <4CA347CB.9030200@cafonso.ca> <19E7C73AA806468EA6EE3D68AA678053@MTBJ> Message-ID: Well, Adam, I was about to reply the same, and it's morning here... alright, noon, so let's see: Tijani, if that was the case, then maybe you were not as early for voting, compared to others, as you thought you were. I could see the exact total number of votes already recorded, the exact number for each option and candidate, and their respective percentages. Now let's agree that the question is no longer what was shown (those who saw what they saw know what they saw - how about that for a noon philosophical thought? - kidding.) The question before us is what do we do with the ongoing voting or the outcome, given all the pending issues: stats/vote breakdown shown during voting, no sufficient charter amendment discussion, and flawed charter amendment procedure? Mawaki On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Apologies if my reply was a little abrupt/rude (brusque?). Late, I > should sleep :-) > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:49 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > The statistics showed the number of votes for each candidate. And > > that's the concern. > > > > There are two coordinators and three candidates. If I saw my first > > choice way out in front, I might switch my single vote to my second > > choice, etc. > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA > > wrote: > >> I was one of the first voters, and I can tell u that neither the stat at > the > >> end of the survey, nor the link Jeremy gave show the full voting result. > >> They only give the total number of voters. > >> > >> > >> > >> I don't know why Jeremy doesn't explain what was shown. > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> 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 : Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] > >> Envoyé : mercredi 29 septembre 2010 15:06 > >> À : governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Objet : Re: [governance] Tips about the election process > >> > >> > >> > >> Yes, Jean, I have had my ears pulled by several people already on > >> > >> this... Had no idea the first voters could see everything. > >> > >> > >> > >> --c.a. > >> > >> > >> > >> On 09/29/2010 10:36 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> > >>> Carlos, Jeremy changed the stats after several people said he should. > >> > >>> You accessed the stats _after_ Jeremy changed them. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> jeanette > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On 29.09.2010 13:13, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> > >>>> Uh-oh, OK, when I voted it did not. Then no need to change now, right? > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> --c.a. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> On 09/29/2010 08:57 AM, David Souter wrote: > >> > >>>>> Yes, I did. It did, at the time I visited, give a breakdown of the > >> > >>>>> number > >> > >>>>> of votes cast for each candidate up to that point in time. > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> 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) > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >> > >>>>> From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] > >> > >>>>> Sent: 29 September 2010 12:52 > >> > >>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Shahzad Ahmad > >> > >>>>> Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; Jeremy Malcolm > >> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Tips about the election process > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> Did anyone who are agreeing with Jean actually visit the stats page? > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> --c.a. > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> On 09/29/2010 04:46 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > >> > >>>>>> Agreed with Jeanette. The statistics should not be made available > >> > >>>>>> before > >> > >>>>>> completion of the process > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> Hi Jeremy, > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> I don't think the statistics for the election of the coordinator > >> > >>>>>>> should be made publicly available before the completion of the > >> > >>>>>>> election. It may affect the way people vote. > >> > >>>>>>> jeanette > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> On 29.09.2010 06:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> > >>>>>>>> Please don't answer YES to "Have you already voted in this > election?" > >> > >>>>>>>> if, in fact, you haven't done so. Answering YES will prevent you > from > >> > >>>>>>>> being allowed to vote. A couple of people have already been caught > by > >> > >>>>>>>> this (after verification of their error I deleted their original > >> > >>>>>>>> responses so they could try again). > >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> Another issue is that although you are presented with a link to > the > >> > >>>>>>>> current statistics of the poll in progress after you complete your > >> > >>>>>>>> answers, there is no convenient way to get back to those > statistics > >> > >>>>>>>> after you close your browser window. So to address this, here is a > >> > >>>>>>>> permanent link to the statistics: > >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >>>>> > http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/statistics_user.php?action=statistics&sid=7 > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> 4518 > >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >>>>> < > http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/statistics_user.php?action=statistics&sid= > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> 74518> > >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> -- > >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> *Jeremy Malcolm > >> > >>>>>>>> Project Coordinator* > >> > >>>>>>>> Consumers International > >> > >>>>>>>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > >> > >>>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala > >> > >>>>>>>> Lumpur, > >> > >>>>>>>> Malaysia > >> > >>>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> *CI is 50* > >> > >>>>>>>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer > >> > >>>>>>>> movement > >> > >>>>>>>> in 2010. > >> > >>>>>>>> Celebrate with 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 > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >> > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > 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 Sep 29 13:10:25 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:40:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> <4CA324A2.80701@itforchange.net> <51844480-3DDF-4E39-AC38-2ACA9BD44616@psg.com> <4CA33FDA.5000701@paque.net> Message-ID: <4CA37301.1040104@itforchange.net> Yes, Izumi, I completely agree that the problems, if there are any, associated with the charter amendment part of the process should not be allowed to interfere with, and shadow over, the more important part on voting in our new co-coordinator. The voting for the new co-coordinator should go on and all should participate enthusiastically, because, whatever gets decided, this is how we show our continued commitment to the the IGC, and its relevance to the changes in the world that we want to see, and possibly help bring about... Parminder On Wednesday 29 September 2010 10:27 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear Parminder and all, > > Thank you for raising this important issue and providing inputs. > > Though I have my own opinion, being a candidate for a co-coordinator, > I like to refrain from putting them here now, and like to follow whatever > outcome we reach. > > I am afraid that my saying something on charter amendment > may affect on the co-coordinator election or vice versa in an > inappropriate manner. > > This might be the case of "Race condition"Avri put. > Thank you for your understanding and continuing efforts, > > izumi > > > 2010/9/30 Fearghas McKay: > >> But the election has not completed so for new voters you haven't voted in >> the last election, only the current running one. >> >> The whole election process was meant to be reviewed but it didn't seem to >> make it to the top of our todo lists. I think it does need to be revisited >> soon both for some version of Proportional Representation and procedural >> tightening up. >> f >> >> On 29 Sep 2010, at 14:32, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> I don't know if I should weigh in, being co-coordinator, but not running the >> election, but this is exactly what I think: first I voted in the election, >> then I voted on the charter. >> >> On 9/29/2010 8:28 AM, Avri Doria 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 >> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Sep 29 13:21:06 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:21:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> <4CA324A2.80701@itforchange.net> <51844480-3DDF-4E39-AC38-2ACA9BD44616@psg.com> <4CA33FDA.5000701@paque.net> Message-ID: I agree with Parminder. If you have a written charter then it seems to me that you are obliged to obey your own rules, no matter how inconvenient that may be. And if you wish to change the rules, and you have an established process, then that process should be followed. A couple of days ago Avri pointed out the desirability of further discussion if indeed the charter was being amended. It is not entirely clear whether the second vote is on an amendment to the charter or whether it is seeking agreement for an individual instance of a change in the process of establishing nomination committees, for this time only. I would suggest that the second vote should be considered invalid. Considering the discussion during the course of today it might be wisest in fact to run both polls again, separately, and give careful consideration to the order in which the polls are taken. Or at least that is how it looks from here Best wishes Deirdre On 29 September 2010 11:17, Fearghas McKay wrote: > But the election has not completed so for new voters you haven't voted in > the last election, only the current running one. > > The whole election process was meant to be reviewed but it didn't seem to > make it to the top of our todo lists. I think it does need to be revisited > soon both for some version of Proportional Representation and procedural > tightening up. > > f > > > On 29 Sep 2010, at 14:32, Ginger Paque wrote: > > I don't know if I should weigh in, being co-coordinator, but not running > the election, but this is exactly what I think: first I voted in the > election, then I voted on the charter. > > On 9/29/2010 8:28 AM, Avri Doria 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 > -- “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 shailam at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 15:19:58 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:19:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: <4CA33FDA.5000701@paque.net> References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> <4CA324A2.80701@itforchange.net> <51844480-3DDF-4E39-AC38-2ACA9BD44616@psg.com> <4CA33FDA.5000701@paque.net> Message-ID: <175017.31113.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Hi All Establishing eligibility to vote based on whether one has voted the prior election is in general a good way to acknowledge membership and also measure involvement and awareness of of the work of this forum . However I would point out that I too could not vote one year and was left out of the election the subsequent occasion, despite being I am a long standing involved member of this group . Perhaps to protect against this we can have an annual acknowledgment of membership at an agreed time post for individuals to weigh in as continuing members. For example we could do this 6 months before the election or at the beginning of the year or some such fixed time . Sorry for the late post. I am on Pacific time and this is the best opportunity I have to weigh in My two cents worth ! It was good to see all of you in Vilnius! Shaila Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! From: Ginger Paque To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria Sent: Wed, September 29, 2010 6:32:10 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Criterion for charter voting I don't know if I should weigh in, being co-coordinator, but not running the election, but this is exactly what I think: first I voted in the election, then I voted on the charter. On 9/29/2010 8:28 AM, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, Interesting point. Having just voted in an election, one could argue that the conditions of the charter had been met. Interesting cascade. And on the spirit, this happened so quickly, within the two month margin for voting on an election, we can be confident no one joined the mailing list to mess with the charter. So we might have both letter and spirit. a. On 29 Sep 2010, at 08:40, Paul Lehto wrote: >On 9/29/10, parminder wrote: >>Paul, at this point the issue is not about one view against another, but the >>letter of the charter of the IGC, which clearly has a different eligibility >>criterion for voting in a charter amendment than any other voting. It states >>that "In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous >>election will be deemed a member for amending the charter." >> >I understand that's the language. But in order to conclude that someone's vote >is taken away, the language must be clear and unequivocal. Here, those who >voted in the previous election are "deemed" members - it's automatic so to >speak. There is no express preclusion of others who can establish membership >through means not automatic in nature. Thank you Parminder for your courtesy >and respect regarding me and the letter and spirit of the law. The letter and >the spirit are why I interpret it in the manner above, one should greatly >hesitate and put the burden of specificity on an interpretation that would >result in the denial of a voting right. If a Charter intended for a more >restricted class of Charter voters, it would typically (at least if well >drafted) state at the end of the sentence above something like "and no others >shall be deemed qualified voters by any means for the purpose of amending the >Charter." -- 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Sep 29 15:42:28 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:42:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> <4CA324A2.80701@itforchange.net> <51844480-3DDF-4E39-AC38-2ACA9BD44616@psg.com> <4CA33EF0.90902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: If we intend to be a one person one vote equal democracy (and the charter does invoke equality in a strong way, lending strength to this approach) then there's really no such thing as "gaming", just like 18 year olds who just recently registered to vote and happen to decide an election by their numbers have not really gamed anything. The feelings of the elders are understandable, but they are not democratically sound, they rely instead on something akin to a two tier society, one of the more respected and powerful "elders" and the lower class apprentices or something like that. I'm not going to be a spoil sport or anything, but I do think these are important governance matters for us to take reasonably seriously if we are to recommend governance solutions to others... Paul Lehto, J.D. On 9/29/10, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I agree that it could be considered cynical, though i did not mean it > cynically. > > And I agree that it hinges on interpretations, especially of "most currently > available voters list" and "everyone who voted in the previous election". > And that it is a close call. > > I find myself wavering on this and seeing 2 sides, maybe too much coffee > now. Parminder is right is that we might be opening a gaming hole. E.g next > year 3 months before the election, a bunch of people could join the list in > time for coordinator voting rights, with the real intent of presenting a > charter amendment. Would this serve as a precedent that this was ok. > > I am so glad that we have an appeals mechanism whereby if enough people (5) > think that the current process is wrong, it can be put to review. > > Also, I must admit, as a process geek, to being fascinated by us have a > problem of a race condition* in the charter. I see them in computer > sceince all the time, but this is my first experience of one in a charter > and has taught me stuff. > > a. > > *Race condition: > > Race conditions arise in software when separate processes or threads of > execution depend on some shared state. Operations upon shared states are > critical sections that must be mutually exclusive in order to avoid harmful > collision between processes or threads that share those states. > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_condition) > > > On 29 Sep 2010, at 09:28, parminder wrote: > >> >> >> On Wednesday 29 September 2010 06:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Interesting point. >>> >>> Having just voted in an election, one could argue that the conditions of >>> the charter had been met. Interesting cascade. >>> >>> And on the spirit, this happened so quickly, within the two month margin >>> for voting on an election, we can be confident no one joined the mailing >>> list to mess with the charter. >>> >>> So we might have both letter and spirit. >>> >>> >> >> Avri >> >> The letter of the corresponding text of the charter, in my view, is about >> an eligible voter for a charter amendment actually having voted in the >> last election, which I read as something which is meant to be prior to >> starting the process of charter amendment, and not an ongoing, >> un-concluded voting process, in which the voter participates a few seconds >> prior to her/his charter amendment vote. That simply makes no sense, and I >> would say is a rather cynical way of reading such an important document as >> the IGC's charter. >> >> And the spirit of the referred text is that when one votes for a charter >> amendment one may not decide just on instinct (or with malafide intention >> as part of a capture process) to be a part of the group's core >> self-defining process, but has some sustained involvement with the >> processes of the group which gives her/ him a right to be part of such >> collective self-definition and determination (and, on the other hand, >> stands as some degree of check against an orchestrated capture process). >> >> In the present case, if one was already subscribed to the list for 2 >> months, she/he could have chosen to participate in charter amendment >> without having had, independently (and this is the key point), >> participated in an earlier election, which is the intent of the charter. >> One may just do the coordinator vote, because that is the technical >> necessity to go to the charter amendment vote, with ones principal intent >> focused on charter amendment vote . The charter's express and specific >> requirement of previous commitment and involvement for casting a charter >> amendment vote is obviously not met in this case. >> >> This particular amendment is for a minor issue, so it really doesnt matter >> that much either way. However, we have to be clear about protecting our >> Charter's voting processes, especially charter amendment voting processes. >> A bad precedent allowed to pass becomes the law. >> >> >> Parminder >>> a. >>> >>> >>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 08:40, Paul Lehto wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 9/29/10, parminder >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Paul, at this point the issue is not about one view against another, >>>>> but >>>>> the letter of the charter of the IGC, which clearly has a different >>>>> eligibility criterion for voting in a charter amendment than any other >>>>> voting. It states that >>>>> >>>>> "In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous >>>>> election will be deemed a member for amending the charter." >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I understand that's the language. But in order to conclude that >>>> someone's vote is taken away, the language must be clear and >>>> unequivocal. Here, those who voted in the previous election are >>>> "deemed" members - it's automatic so to speak. There is no express >>>> preclusion of others who can establish membership through means not >>>> automatic in nature. >>>> >>>> Thank you Parminder for your courtesy and respect regarding me and the >>>> letter and spirit of the law. The letter and the spirit are why I >>>> interpret it in the manner above, one should greatly hesitate and put >>>> the burden of specificity on an interpretation that would result in >>>> the denial of a voting right. If a Charter intended for a more >>>> restricted class of Charter voters, it would typically (at least if >>>> well drafted) state at the end of the sentence above something like >>>> "and no others shall be deemed qualified voters by any means for the >>>> purpose of amending the Charter." >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> Translate this email: >>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Sep 29 16:03:48 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 06:03:48 +1000 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: <4CA37301.1040104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Seeing this problem has been raised, I think there are a few things that are clear . Firstly, there are no grounds for a challenge to the co coordinator election. It is completely valid even if there are problems with the subsequent charter amendment vote. So we do not need to do that again. Re the charter amendment ­ Jeremy has heard the various calls and must make a decision on how to proceed and his grounds for doing so ­ perhaps in conjunction with both Ginger as outgoing coordinator and the newly elected coordinator as well, but that I think is Jeremy¹s call. Options would seem to include 1. separating the voters in some way to count only valid votes and voters for the charter amendment. That would be nice if it could be done 2. Declaring the vote valid and reasons for doing so ­ in which case it would stand unless an appeal was mounted. 3. Declaring the vote invalid or at least doubtful, and adopting the earlier Parminder suggestion of using the same Nomcom pool but selecting two different nomcoms which avoids the problem. And of course declaring the vote valid would require that the 2/3 of members had voted for it ­ not just 2/3 of the members who bothered to vote. It¹s a high mark to reach as we found in the last charter amendment. In this respect I recently forwarded to Jeremy a copy of the report on the previous charter amendment and the reasoning adopted in declaring a valid member vote on that occasion. That gives some sort of precedent that may or may not need to be followed (I could not find it on the website but I think it would be in the email archives) I hope we can find a smooth and easy way forward. Process is important, but it is at least equally important that we be functional and able to act to meet our challenges, especially when the will of the membership is clear. Ian Peter From: parminder Reply-To: , parminder Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:40:25 +0530 To: Subject: Re: [governance] Criterion for charter voting Yes, Izumi, I completely agree that the problems, if there are any, associated with the charter amendment part of the process should not be allowed to interfere with, and shadow over, the more important part on voting in our new co-coordinator. The voting for the new co-coordinator should go on and all should participate enthusiastically, because, whatever gets decided, this is how we show our continued commitment to the the IGC, and its relevance to the changes in the world that we want to see, and possibly help bring about... Parminder On Wednesday 29 September 2010 10:27 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > Dear Parminder and all, > > Thank you for raising this important issue and providing inputs. > > Though I have my own opinion, being a candidate for a co-coordinator, > I like to refrain from putting them here now, and like to follow whatever > outcome we reach. > > I am afraid that my saying something on charter amendment > may affect on the co-coordinator election or vice versa in an > inappropriate manner. > > This might be the case of "Race condition"Avri put. > Thank you for your understanding and continuing efforts, > > izumi > > > 2010/9/30 Fearghas McKay > : > > >> >> But the election has not completed so for new voters you haven't voted in >> the last election, only the current running one. >> >> The whole election process was meant to be reviewed but it didn't seem to >> make it to the top of our todo lists. I think it does need to be revisited >> soon both for some version of Proportional Representation and procedural >> tightening up. >> f >> >> On 29 Sep 2010, at 14:32, Ginger Paque >> wrote: >> >> I don't know if I should weigh in, being co-coordinator, but not running the >> election, but this is exactly what I think: first I voted in the election, >> then I voted on the charter. >> >> On 9/29/2010 8:28 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 29 16:11:12 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:11:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> <4CA324A2.80701@itforchange.net> <51844480-3DDF-4E39-AC38-2ACA9BD44616@psg.com> <4CA33EF0.90902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <35109089-739F-4A65-BAC1-FB593DFDB59B@psg.com> Hi, I actually never personally worry about gaming,. It is not something I really believe in. I think there are rules and there are some people who attempt to use them in as creative a way as possible to gain an advantage for themselves. That is just life, and it is something an organization has to be agile enough to deal with. But, there are other people who really believe in gaming and think it is an evil to be guarded against. So I take their concern seriously. a. On 29 Sep 2010, at 15:42, Paul Lehto wrote: > If we intend to be a one person one vote equal democracy (and the > charter does invoke equality in a strong way, lending strength to this > approach) then there's really no such thing as "gaming", just like 18 > year olds who just recently registered to vote and happen to decide an > election by their numbers have not really gamed anything. The feelings > of the elders are understandable, but they are not democratically > sound, they rely instead on something akin to a two tier society, one > of the more respected and powerful "elders" and the lower class > apprentices or something like that. > > I'm not going to be a spoil sport or anything, but I do think these > are important governance matters for us to take reasonably seriously > if we are to recommend governance solutions to others... > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > > On 9/29/10, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I agree that it could be considered cynical, though i did not mean it >> cynically. >> >> And I agree that it hinges on interpretations, especially of "most currently >> available voters list" and "everyone who voted in the previous election". >> And that it is a close call. >> >> I find myself wavering on this and seeing 2 sides, maybe too much coffee >> now. Parminder is right is that we might be opening a gaming hole. E.g next >> year 3 months before the election, a bunch of people could join the list in >> time for coordinator voting rights, with the real intent of presenting a >> charter amendment. Would this serve as a precedent that this was ok. >> >> I am so glad that we have an appeals mechanism whereby if enough people (5) >> think that the current process is wrong, it can be put to review. >> >> Also, I must admit, as a process geek, to being fascinated by us have a >> problem of a race condition* in the charter. I see them in computer >> sceince all the time, but this is my first experience of one in a charter >> and has taught me stuff. >> >> a. >> >> *Race condition: >> >> Race conditions arise in software when separate processes or threads of >> execution depend on some shared state. Operations upon shared states are >> critical sections that must be mutually exclusive in order to avoid harmful >> collision between processes or threads that share those states. >> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_condition) >> >> >> On 29 Sep 2010, at 09:28, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday 29 September 2010 06:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Interesting point. >>>> >>>> Having just voted in an election, one could argue that the conditions of >>>> the charter had been met. Interesting cascade. >>>> >>>> And on the spirit, this happened so quickly, within the two month margin >>>> for voting on an election, we can be confident no one joined the mailing >>>> list to mess with the charter. >>>> >>>> So we might have both letter and spirit. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Avri >>> >>> The letter of the corresponding text of the charter, in my view, is about >>> an eligible voter for a charter amendment actually having voted in the >>> last election, which I read as something which is meant to be prior to >>> starting the process of charter amendment, and not an ongoing, >>> un-concluded voting process, in which the voter participates a few seconds >>> prior to her/his charter amendment vote. That simply makes no sense, and I >>> would say is a rather cynical way of reading such an important document as >>> the IGC's charter. >>> >>> And the spirit of the referred text is that when one votes for a charter >>> amendment one may not decide just on instinct (or with malafide intention >>> as part of a capture process) to be a part of the group's core >>> self-defining process, but has some sustained involvement with the >>> processes of the group which gives her/ him a right to be part of such >>> collective self-definition and determination (and, on the other hand, >>> stands as some degree of check against an orchestrated capture process). >>> >>> In the present case, if one was already subscribed to the list for 2 >>> months, she/he could have chosen to participate in charter amendment >>> without having had, independently (and this is the key point), >>> participated in an earlier election, which is the intent of the charter. >>> One may just do the coordinator vote, because that is the technical >>> necessity to go to the charter amendment vote, with ones principal intent >>> focused on charter amendment vote . The charter's express and specific >>> requirement of previous commitment and involvement for casting a charter >>> amendment vote is obviously not met in this case. >>> >>> This particular amendment is for a minor issue, so it really doesnt matter >>> that much either way. However, we have to be clear about protecting our >>> Charter's voting processes, especially charter amendment voting processes. >>> A bad precedent allowed to pass becomes the law. >>> >>> >>> Parminder >>>> a. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 08:40, Paul Lehto wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 9/29/10, parminder >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Paul, at this point the issue is not about one view against another, >>>>>> but >>>>>> the letter of the charter of the IGC, which clearly has a different >>>>>> eligibility criterion for voting in a charter amendment than any other >>>>>> voting. It states that >>>>>> >>>>>> "In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous >>>>>> election will be deemed a member for amending the charter." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I understand that's the language. But in order to conclude that >>>>> someone's vote is taken away, the language must be clear and >>>>> unequivocal. Here, those who voted in the previous election are >>>>> "deemed" members - it's automatic so to speak. There is no express >>>>> preclusion of others who can establish membership through means not >>>>> automatic in nature. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you Parminder for your courtesy and respect regarding me and the >>>>> letter and spirit of the law. The letter and the spirit are why I >>>>> interpret it in the manner above, one should greatly hesitate and put >>>>> the burden of specificity on an interpretation that would result in >>>>> the denial of a voting right. If a Charter intended for a more >>>>> restricted class of Charter voters, it would typically (at least if >>>>> well drafted) state at the end of the sentence above something like >>>>> "and no others shall be deemed qualified voters by any means for the >>>>> purpose of amending the Charter." >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> >>>> Translate this email: >>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ 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 gurstein at gmail.com Wed Sep 29 16:25:09 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:25:09 -0700 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <058685E1D6ED497FA7386407793B7886@userPC> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 29 18:04:14 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:04:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: <058685E1D6ED497FA7386407793B7886@userPC> References: <058685E1D6ED497FA7386407793B7886@userPC> Message-ID: 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Sep 29 18:58:46 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:58:46 -0700 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <57B7CD8DEA1645DEAEECCBF39E42F448@userPC> 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 kichango at gmail.com Wed Sep 29 19:19:08 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:19:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <058685E1D6ED497FA7386407793B7886@userPC> Message-ID: I do not take the idea of "gaming" IGC that seriously either (what do we have to sell?) In fact, I don't think even Parminder (whom I believe used that word first in this conversation) does. It's a generic argument, and the fondamental idea is that there are rules -- notably membership rules -- when you organize to certain extent. I do not vote in the country I'm living in, arguably one of the greatest democracies on earth, because I've been here for a few years, paying taxes and being a good citizen (even spending hours following the political debates because I'm interested in the issues of the republic.) Because there are rules that say I must meet a number of conditions over a number of years, etc. I really don't think the rule of voting at one election prior to be formally considered member is such a hurdle that some people make it sound. After all, how often does that membership status have any consequence? People on the list can always vote at any time. Only certain decisions, of particular importance for the group, require as condition for participation that one's involvement be old of 1 vote casted, or that one did not miss the previous vote. Is that really too much? That being said, if people want to change that rule to, say, a statement to be made at a given time every year or something, that's ok by me. But note that there are roughly 12 months from a moment in a year to the same time the next year, during which people may join the list - what happens to them? Or do people want to get rid of membership rule altogether, including for votes such as charter amendments? We can follow any of those options, in my view. I just tend to think that when people make a choice, it has consequences. Mawaki On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 29 19:22:13 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:22:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: <57B7CD8DEA1645DEAEECCBF39E42F448@userPC> References: <57B7CD8DEA1645DEAEECCBF39E42F448@userPC> Message-ID: <3747F228-0546-460F-BAB2-93CC61EA4AAD@psg.com> 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Sep 29 23:28:51 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:28:51 +0800 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: <51844480-3DDF-4E39-AC38-2ACA9BD44616@psg.com> References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> <4CA324A2.80701@itforchange.net> <51844480-3DDF-4E39-AC38-2ACA9BD44616@psg.com> Message-ID: On 29/09/2010, at 8:58 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Having just voted in an election, one could argue that the conditions of the charter had been met. Interesting cascade. > > And on the spirit, this happened so quickly, within the two month margin for voting on an election, we can be confident no one joined the mailing list to mess with the charter. > > So we might have both letter and spirit. Exactly. That was my reason for doing it this way. Whilst I agree that it is a question of interpretation as to whether one can interpret "voting 30 seconds ago" as having "voted in the previous election", it cannot be questioned that if you vote in the election one day before it closes, you can vote again in a charter poll that is called the following day. So - 30 seconds, or one day - what difference does it make? Don't forget that we are pressed for time here. Unless the charter is amended, we will be unable to legally nominate any civil society representatives for the CSTD working group on the IGF. Further, the longer delay between election and charter vote, the less time the nominating committee will have to deliberate. Having said that, if there is a clear preference for Adam's solution, whereby I would disqualify voters from all the 2010-eligible members if they were not also 2009-eligible members, then we can proceed that way. This is technically possible, and will save us the time (and aggravation to people who have already voted) that we would otherwise waste by duplicating the poll in 10 days time. However, my reason for avoiding doing this was that there was a shadow over the validity of the 2009 membership list, that was never completely resolved (and frankly, probably now cannot be, since the person who ran the last election was unable to find the time to do the necessary investigations - and he was always volunteering his time after all). So my first preference is that we accept both the coordinator election result AND the charter vote as valid, but I have encouraged Parminder to let the Appeals Team decide if this is unacceptable to him. My second preference is that if there are a sizable number of people for whom the first option is unacceptable, and if it this would overcome their concern and Parminder's, I will filter the results of the charter poll through last year's membership list (notwithstanding the problems with that list). My third and least preferred option is to run the charter vote again after the coordinator ballot closes. I would need an Appeals Team decision on this before proceeding, because of the delay it would cause to our selection of the CSTD panel. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 Wed Sep 29 23:36:04 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:36:04 +0800 Subject: [governance] Tips about the election process In-Reply-To: <19E7C73AA806468EA6EE3D68AA678053@MTBJ> References: <9C21038F-E31E-4055-B146-B4795A9D9DF4@ciroap.org> <4CA2E604.6080602@wzb.eu> <90D516C7-C95D-410C-9764-C1E26521330E@bytesforall.net> <4CA32851.9080707@cafonso.ca> <006e01cb5fcd$90424e30$b0c6ea90$@souter@runbox.com> <4CA32D66.7010100@cafonso.ca> <4CA340E3.9060907@wzb.eu> <4CA347CB.9030200@cafonso.ca> <19E7C73AA806468EA6EE3D68AA678053@MTBJ> Message-ID: On 30/09/2010, at 12:29 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > I was one of the first voters, and I can tell u that neither the stat at the end of the survey, nor the link Jeremy gave show the full voting result. They only give the total number of voters. > > I don't know why Jeremy doesn't explain what was shown. Simply because I am in a different time zone, and all of this debate happened after I had left the office. I had other things to do overnight and didn't check my email. To confirm what most people have gathered, the earliest voters did see a statistical breakdown, until I disabled this. You voted soon after I had disabled 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Sep 30 00:32:48 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:32:48 +0900 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> <4CA324A2.80701@itforchange.net> <51844480-3DDF-4E39-AC38-2ACA9BD44616@psg.com> Message-ID: Jeremy, thanks for all your work on this. "In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter." And that does seem to be what happened. I hope it won't come to disqualifying voters, or holding the vote again. Need to move on. Adam >On 29/09/2010, at 8:58 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Having just voted in an election, one could argue that the >>conditions of the charter had been met. Interesting cascade. >> >> And on the spirit, this happened so quickly, within the two month >>margin for voting on an election, we can be confident no one joined >>the mailing list to mess with the charter. >> >> So we might have both letter and spirit. > >Exactly. That was my reason for doing it this way. Whilst I agree >that it is a question of interpretation as to whether one can >interpret "voting 30 seconds ago" as having "voted in the previous >election", it cannot be questioned that if you vote in the election >one day before it closes, you can vote again in a charter poll that >is called the following day. So - 30 seconds, or one day - what >difference does it make? > >Don't forget that we are pressed for time here. Unless the charter >is amended, we will be unable to legally nominate any civil society >representatives for the CSTD working group on the IGF. Further, the >longer delay between election and charter vote, the less time the >nominating committee will have to deliberate. > >Having said that, if there is a clear preference for Adam's >solution, whereby I would disqualify voters from all the >2010-eligible members if they were not also 2009-eligible members, >then we can proceed that way. This is technically possible, and >will save us the time (and aggravation to people who have already >voted) that we would otherwise waste by duplicating the poll in 10 >days time. > >However, my reason for avoiding doing this was that there was a >shadow over the validity of the 2009 membership list, that was never >completely resolved (and frankly, probably now cannot be, since the >person who ran the last election was unable to find the time to do >the necessary investigations - and he was always volunteering his >time after all). > >So my first preference is that we accept both the coordinator >election result AND the charter vote as valid, but I have encouraged >Parminder to let the Appeals Team decide if this is unacceptable to >him. > >My second preference is that if there are a sizable number of people >for whom the first option is unacceptable, and if it this would >overcome their concern and Parminder's, I will filter the results of >the charter poll through last year's membership list >(notwithstanding the problems with that list). > >My third and least preferred option is to run the charter vote again >after the coordinator ballot closes. I would need an Appeals Team >decision on this before proceeding, because of the delay it would >cause to our selection of the CSTD panel. > >-- >Jeremy Malcolm >Project Coordinator >Consumers International >Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >Lumpur, Malaysia >Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > >CI is 50 >Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer >movement in 2010. >Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote 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 56.p7s ( / ) (007C5BA8) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 30 02:43:22 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:13:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> <4CA324A2.80701@itforchange.net> <51844480-3DDF-4E39-AC38-2ACA9BD44616@psg.com> Message-ID: <4CA4318A.1070107@itforchange.net> On Thursday 30 September 2010 08:58 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 29/09/2010, at 8:58 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > >> Having just voted in an election, one could argue that the conditions of the charter had been met. Interesting cascade. >> >> And on the spirit, this happened so quickly, within the two month margin for voting on an election, we can be confident no one joined the mailing list to mess with the charter. >> >> So we might have both letter and spirit. >> > Exactly. That was my reason for doing it this way. Whilst I agree that it is a question of interpretation as to whether one can interpret "voting 30 seconds ago" as having "voted in the previous election", it cannot be questioned that if you vote in the election one day before it closes, you can vote again in a charter poll that is called the following day. So - 30 seconds, or one day - what difference does it make? > > Jeremy I think, the co-coordinators need to protect the letter and spirit of the charter, in this case to understand why special conditions were laid for a charter vote, and do their utmost to go by it, rather than say, well, one could also have done this or that, and it would be the same, 'what difference does it make'... I dont think taking this line of argument, showing other 'possible' technical gaps and loopholes, is really the right way to defend a leadership decision, which could as easily have been taken in a manner that upheld the charter. > Don't forget that we are pressed for time here. Unless the charter is amended, we will be unable to legally nominate any civil society representatives for the CSTD working group on the IGF. The suggestion given to you before you embarked on the process was to have the charter amendment vote - which is where we are pressed for time - right away, before the co-coordinator vote. (It is a different issue that the the very need of a charter amendment has been questioned by many, without the needed response from the co-cordinators.) I dont see why we are pressed for time reg the co-coordinator vote. Last year it took place in December, I think. In any case, nothing prevented the coordinator vote to immediately follow the charter amendment vote. > Further, the longer delay between election and charter vote, the less time the nominating committee will have to deliberate. > As I said, charter amendment vote, if necessary, could be carried out first and nomcom process started immediately. I dont see the problem here. > Having said that, if there is a clear preference for Adam's solution, whereby I would disqualify voters from all the 2010-eligible members if they were not also 2009-eligible members, then we can proceed that way. This is technically possible, and will save us the time (and aggravation to people who have already voted) that we would otherwise waste by duplicating the poll in 10 days time. > > However, my reason for avoiding doing this was that there was a shadow over the validity of the 2009 membership list, that was never completely resolved (and frankly, probably now cannot be, since the person who ran the last election was unable to find the time to do the necessary investigations - and he was always volunteering his time after all). > I have asked for this before, included on the list, and I think IGC should get a report on what really happened vis a vis the 2009 voting with reg. to its voting list. We need to know all that the coordinators know, which must be significant since now we see that it has become the basis of an important organizational decision (though taken in private) not to use the 2009 election voters list for a purpose it is needed to be used for a charter mandated organizational process. If Derrick Cogburn, who conducted the polls, has some information on this he can be persuaded to share it, but at least coordinators should share with us the basis of their doubts about the 2009 election voters list. In any case, if, as you say, the ' shadow over the validity of the 2009 membership list' was a material issue in taking this contested decision about the charter amendment vote, I think the list could easily have been revalidated. But that depends on what kind and extent of shadow there is on the voters list. Parminder > So my first preference is that we accept both the coordinator election result AND the charter vote as valid, but I have encouraged Parminder to let the Appeals Team decide if this is unacceptable to him. > > My second preference is that if there are a sizable number of people for whom the first option is unacceptable, and if it this would overcome their concern and Parminder's, I will filter the results of the charter poll through last year's membership list (notwithstanding the problems with that list). > > My third and least preferred option is to run the charter vote again after the coordinator ballot closes. I would need an Appeals Team decision on this before proceeding, because of the delay it would cause to our selection of the CSTD panel. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 30 03:37:40 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 09:37:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] FYI References: <4C9DE370.9040108@gmail.com> <4CA1EAA8.20007@gih.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A071EA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/open-letter ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sep 30 03:54:54 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 09:54:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] COICA In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A071EA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4C9DE370.9040108@gmail.com> <4CA1EAA8.20007@gih.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A071EA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <90FA00F3-F4A6-4479-B09A-65F4992854C1@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi COICA is an intergalactically horrible idea that seems designed to greatly escalate concerns about unilateralism vis. CIR. As CDT's letter http://cdt.org/files/pdfs/Leahy_bill_memo.pdf notes, "S. 3804 significantly aggravates the situation by suggesting to the world that the U.S. does intend to use the historic nature of the DNS (with American companies administering “.com” and other leading top-level domains) to impose American law on the global Internet. Under the bill, the U.S. asserts that it can take down websites created and operated anywhere in the world, simply based on the fact that the websites use the most popular global top-level domain (.com). This type of assertion of global control is the kind of U.S. exercise of power about which other countries of the world have worried – and about which U.S. foreign policy has sought to reassure the world. Thus S. 3804 directly harms the United Statesʼ Internet governance agenda pursued through diplomatic channels over the past ten years." A bit astonishing and sad that the bill was introduced by Patrick Leahy, who for many years has been a champion of online civil liberties and partner of US public interest groups on digital matters. But the IPR lobby is a powerful beast that apparently must be placated…Still, I'd like to think he's going through the motions here and knows this should fail. Bill On Sep 30, 2010, at 9:37 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/open-letter > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 pgo at info.fundp.ac.be Thu Sep 30 06:37:18 2010 From: pgo at info.fundp.ac.be (Philippe Goujon) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:37:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] 11th IFIP-WG9.2 NAMUR AWARD Call for Nominations Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20100930122230.06e4fa10@pop.info.fundp.ac.be> 11th IFIP-WG9.2 NAMUR AWARD Call for Nominations Working Group 9.2 of IFIP-TC9 concerned with Computers and Society has created the IFIP-WG9.2 NAMUR AWARD. This award, biennial, is to be accorded for an outstanding contribution to the awareness of social implications of information and communication technology. The purpose of the award is to draw attention to the need for an holistic approach in the use of information technology in which the social implications have been taken into account. The contribution can be in the form of a publication, design, lecture, project or achievement of any kind within the spirit of the NAMUR AWARD. Official reports, as well as all the necessary information, including the Nomination Form, may be found at http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/~jbl/IFIP/award.html (and in the attached file) Nominations for the 11th IFIP-WG9.2 Namur Award (to be awarded in 2012) must be sent before December 1st, 2010. The winners: 1991: Prof. Joseph Weizenbaum, MIT, Cambridge, Massachussets (USA) 1993: Dr. Riccardo Petrella, Head of the FAST Programme, European Commission 1996: Dr. Carlos-Alberto Afonso, IBASE, Community of people AlterNex, Brazil 1998: Prof. Gunilla Bradley, Royal Institute of Technology, Kista, Sweden 2000: Prof. Simon Rogerson, CCSR, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK 2002: Dr Deborah Hurley, Harvard Information Infrastructure Project, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. USA. 2004: Prof. Ian H. Witten, New Zealand Digital Library Project, University of Waikato, New Zealand 2006: = Nigel Williams, Founder of Childnet International and Northern Ireland Commissioner for children and young people, UK 2008: Prof. Daniel Pimienta, Founder of FUNREDES (http://funredes.org), ICT4D, Santo Domingo 2010 Prof. Jeroen Van den Hove We are waiting for your nominations. Many thanks for your cooperation. Jacques BERLEUR IFIP-WG9.2 Namur Award Committee Chair mailto:jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be Philippe Goujon Professeur Faculté d'Informatique - Computer Science Department FUNDP Rue Grandgagnage, 21- B 5000 NAMUR 32+81 72 5258 - FAX 32+ 81 72 49 67 mail.pgo at info.fundp.ac.be présentation page perso: http://www.fundp.ac.be/universite/personnes/page_view/01005672/cv.html http://fundp.academia.edu/Philippegoujon Projets en cours: Projet IG3T : http ://www.info.fundp.ac.be/IG3T projets européens: projet ETICA (Ethical Issues of Emerging ICT Applications) : http://moriarty.tech.dmu.ac.uk:8080/ projet EGAIS (The Etical GovernAnce of emerging technologieS: http://www.egais-project.eu/ - New Governance perspective for integrating ethics into Technical development Projects and Applications) It is not enough that you should understand about applied science in order that your work may increase man's blessings. Concern for man himself and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavors. Albert Einstein -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Namur Award 2012 Announcement.docx Type: application/msword Size: 27502 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 30 13:47:33 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:17:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <43485E51-5501-42DE-9E8F-5AB5E203C7A2@ciroap.org> <4CA31F4F.2090002@itforchange.net> <4CA324A2.80701@itforchange.net> <51844480-3DDF-4E39-AC38-2ACA9BD44616@psg.com> Message-ID: <4CA4CD35.6010702@itforchange.net> On Thursday 30 September 2010 08:58 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > So my first preference is that we accept both the coordinator election result AND the charter vote as valid, but I have encouraged Parminder to let the Appeals Team decide if this is unacceptable to him. > Jeremy, I am not sure I will like to use the appeals team for this. Precisely because I consider it rather likely that the appeals team, faced with having to take a formal decision on the issue, may decide that the charter amendment process was not right (among others, I read Avri too as saying that it would be a close call). And I hope you have considered the implications of this. It will invalidate the outputs of the nomcom constituted on the basis of the charter amendment, whereby , a few weeks down, we will be left with not having the slate of IGC nominees for the CSTD WG, to hurry towards which we have got into all this. I would not like to expose ourselves to that risk. Parminder PS: However this does not rule out that someone else may appeal against the process, and indeed I have read some views on the list which are at least as critical of the way the process has been conducted as I. > My second preference is that if there are a sizable number of people for whom the first option is unacceptable, and if it this would overcome their concern and Parminder's, I will filter the results of the charter poll through last year's membership list (notwithstanding the problems with that list). > > My third and least preferred option is to run the charter vote again after the coordinator ballot closes. I would need an Appeals Team decision on this before proceeding, because of the delay it would cause to our selection of the CSTD panel. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Thu Sep 30 15:28:40 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:28:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <058685E1D6ED497FA7386407793B7886@userPC> Message-ID: On 9/29/10, Mawaki Chango wrote: > I really don't think the rule of voting at one election prior to be formally > considered member is such a hurdle that some people make it sound. After > all, how often does that membership status have any consequence? People on > the list can always vote at any time. Only certain decisions, of particular > importance for the group, require as condition for participation that one's > involvement be old of 1 vote casted, or that one did not miss the previous > vote. Is that really too much? The idea being debated is not an interpretation that voting in ANY single prior election qualifies for Charter voting, but the IMMEDIATELY prior election. Recall that there have been elections in which, before the election is over, people have to be urged to vote in order to have a quorum. Regardless of the type of election, it shows that with everyone's busy schedules, turnout can be a problem. Thus, after every election there is a rotating but relatively large number of people disqualified for the next election if it is a Charter vote, and those people are not by any means just newcomers to the list. It could be anybody. It has included me. -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Sep 30 16:18:15 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 08:18:15 +1200 Subject: [governance] Criterion for charter voting In-Reply-To: References: <058685E1D6ED497FA7386407793B7886@userPC> Message-ID: Dear All, I hold no view on the matter but have been reading the debate with much interest. My comments are strictly on the interpretations of the term:- *"Immediately prior to the elections"* and whether this is an objective or subjective test. If your membership is the world of internet governance gurus, disciples, followers, specialists, reporters, states, multinationals, civil society etc and they are from all over the world which means different timezones, are they mobile (flight etc) and what if they are in a non-penetrated zone where there is no ICT access for a period of time. What is "reasonableness" for a multistakeholdership body? What were the original drafters' intention in ensuring "time is of the essence"? In examining these questions it may shed some light on the rational of both sides of the debate and how we can come to a consensus. More interestingly, who is the consumer in this aspect and what are the principles of fairness and transparency? Are they being applied? Why are rules made? (this is a rhetorical question - made to stimulate our thought processes) Believe it or not, this debate is a reflection of the conflict between the evolution of forms of government based on philosphers such as Hobbes, Montesqiueue, Locke who agreed that there should be checks and balances but differed in their opinions on the forms of government. Benedict Anson who talked of imaginary boundaries. Eventually, the issues could evolve into what philosophy do we as a multistakeholder group subscribe to? This is interesting because we come from all forms of diverse cultural backgrounds, diverse forms of government and are of course subjected to different laws? What is the objective of the organisation? Who is a member? Whose views are represented? These questions and many more will help us start thinking of:- 1)philosophical platform which should be tied to the vision; 2)the form of government will be a natural consequence once (1) is addressed; 3)there will be room for clear dialogue. Strength of leadership is when there is foresight, ability to link and connect the dots, ability to cater for everyone (does'nt mean they all have to agree but they can agree to disagree), ability to consider the weak amongst us. If this organisation is going to be the template of multistakeholdership for a myriad other issues and organisations in the world, then how it carries itself, inclusive of its formative processes is also critical. Reaching outcomes is important and process is important too. But the question is, what kind of process and why did we choose this type of process. Again, I would like to say that I am not taking any sides just merely exploring the impact of "immediately after the elections" phrase. Warm Regards from Sunny Fiji, Sala On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Paul Lehto wrote: > On 9/29/10, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > I really don't think the rule of voting at one election prior to be > formally > > considered member is such a hurdle that some people make it sound. After > > all, how often does that membership status have any consequence? People > on > > the list can always vote at any time. Only certain decisions, of > particular > > importance for the group, require as condition for participation that > one's > > involvement be old of 1 vote casted, or that one did not miss the > previous > > vote. Is that really too much? > > The idea being debated is not an interpretation that voting in ANY > single prior election qualifies for Charter voting, but the > IMMEDIATELY prior election. > > Recall that there have been elections in which, before the election is > over, people have to be urged to vote in order to have a quorum. > Regardless of the type of election, it shows that with everyone's busy > schedules, turnout can be a problem. Thus, after every election there > is a rotating but relatively large number of people disqualified for > the next election if it is a Charter vote, and those people are not by > any means just newcomers to the list. It could be anybody. It has > included me. > > -- > 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 > -- 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Sep 30 16:25:23 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 06:25:23 +1000 Subject: [governance] Thanks to Ginger Message-ID: 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 From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Sep 30 16:29:29 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:29:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Thanks to Ginger In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would like to second that. I have seen first hand just how hard Ginger works. well done and thank you Deirdre On 30 September 2010 16:25, Ian Peter wrote: > 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 > -- “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 mueller at syr.edu Thu Sep 30 16:32:24 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:32:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: Thanks to Ginger In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70906DC366D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Let me join in the fun and pleasure of thanking Ginger; in case it was not evident that we all appreciated your dedicated and even-handed presence, let it be so now. I think IGC reached a new level of effectiveness during your term. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 4:25 PM > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Sep 30 16:35:49 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 08:35:49 +1200 Subject: [governance] Thanks to Ginger In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ian, thank you for initiating this. In the short time that I have witnessed the organisation and even watching Ginger handle the various tasks, situations and scenario with diplomacy, tact, acumen and pizzaz she has nothing short of "excellent"! Ginger, you are AWESOME! I know that the future coordinators will have excellent sounding boards as Ginger always empowers. The world is a better place because we have people like Ginger in it. Loloma from Fiji, Sala On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > I would like to second that. > I have seen first hand just how hard Ginger works. > well done and thank you > Deirdre > > > On 30 September 2010 16:25, Ian Peter wrote: > >> 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 >> > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro P.O.Box 17862 Suva Fiji Islands Cell: +679 9982851 Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj "Wisdom is far better than riches." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t